/it/- 1_
NASA SP- 1999-6108/(In English)
Phase 1 Program Joint Report
George C. Nield and Pavel Mikhailovich Vorobiev, Editors
January 1999 The NASA STI Program Office... in Profile
Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to the advancement of aeronautics and space CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. Collected science. The NASA Scientific and Technical papers from scientific and technical confer- Information (STI) Program Office plays a key ences, symposia, seminars, or other meetings part in helping NASA maintain this important sponsored or cosponsored by NASA. role. SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientific, The NASA STI Program Office is operated by technical, or historical information from Langley Research Center, the lead center for NASA programs, projects, and mission, often NASA's scientific and technical information. concerned with subjects having substantial The NASA STI Program Office provides access public interest. to the NASA STI Database, the largest collection of aeronautical and space science STI TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. in the world. The Program Office is also English-language translations of foreign NASA's institutional mechanism for scientific and technical material pertinent to disseminating the results of its research and NASA' s mission. development activities. These results are published by NASA in the NASA STI Report Specialized services that complement the STI Series, which includes the following report Program Office's diverse offerings include types: creating custom thesauri, building customized databases, organizing and publishing research TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of results.., even providing videos. completed research or a major significant phase of research that present the results of For more information about the NASA STI NASA programs and include extensive data Program Office, see the following: or theoretical analysis. Includes compilations of significant scientific and • Access the NASA STI Program Home Page at technical data and information deemed to be http://www.sti.nasa.gov of continuing reference value. NASA's counterpart of peer-reviewed formal • E-mail your question via the Internet to professional papers but has less stringent help@sti.nasa.gov limitations on manuscript length and extent of graphic presentations. • Fax your question to the NASA Access Help Desk at (301) 621-0134 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. Scientific and technical findings that are preliminary • Telephone the NASA Access Help Desk at or of specialized interest, e.g., quick release (301) 621-0390 reports, working papers, and bibliographies that contain minimal annotation. Does not Write to: contain extensive analysis. NASA Access Help Desk NASA Center for AeroSpace Information CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientific and 7121 Standard technical findings by NASA-sponsored Hanover, MD 21076-1320 contractors and grantees. NASA SP-1999-6108/(In English)
Phase 1 Program Joint Report
George C. Nield and Pavel Mikhailovich Vorobiev Chief U. S. Editor Chief Russian Editor
January1999 PREFACE
This report consists of inputs from each of the Phase 1 Program Joint Working Groups. Most of the material was written and agreed to during a Team 0 Management Working Group Meeting at the NASA Johnson Space Center, July 13-16, 1998. For this report, the Working Groups were tasked to describe the organizational structure and work processes that they used during the program, joint accomplishments, lessons learned, and applications to the International Space Station Program. The primary authors for each section are listed at the beginning of the section, along with a list of the members of the related Working Group. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Russian and American Working Group Chairmen, or their designated representatives, approved the technical content of their sections. Editing of the report has primarily been limited to formatting and layout changes. Although having multiple authors resulted in some overlap and style differences between the sections, it offered the significant advantage that each subject area write-up was prepared and approved by the appropriate technical experts.
The report is intended to be a top-level joint reference document that contains information of interest to both countries. Detailed scientific and technical results, crew consensus reports, and material that only apply to a single country's programs or operations are to be published separately.
Participants in the Team 0 Management Working Group meetings held prior to launch of STS-89
Available from: NASA Center for AeroSpace Information National Technical Information Service 7121 Standard 5285 Port Royal Road Hanover, MD 21076-1320 Springfield, VA 22161 Price Code: A17 Price Code: A10
I1 CONTENTS
PAGE
Preface ...... II List of Tables and Figures ...... V - VI
1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1. How the Phase I Program Started 1.2. Objectives and Working Group Structure
2. Program Description ...... 9 2.1. Description of the Mir-Shuttle and Mir-NASA Programs 2.2. The Mir Space Station's Flight Program in 1994 - 98 2.3. Phase 1 Joint Mission Information 2.4. Shuttle Mission Preparation Joint Milestones
3. Shuttle Integration With Mir ...... 33 3.1. Introduction 3.2. Structure/Process/Organization Relationships 3.3. Joint Accomplishments 3.4. Docking System 3.5. Lessons Learned/Applicability to ISS 4. Cargo Delivery and Return ...... 57 4.1. Summary Data on Cargo Delivered to/Returned From the Mir Under the Mir Shuttle/Mir-NASA Programs 4.2. List of Russian Cargo on Shuttle Flights to the Mir Station 4.3. Unique Features of Mir-Shuttle and Mir-NASA Orbiter Flights With Respect to Russian Cargo Accommodation 4.4. Principal Stages of Orbiter Processing for Carrying Russian Logistics 4.5. Parties' Primary Accomplishments Under Mir-ShuttleIMir-NASA Programs 5. Joint Shuttle-Mir Operations ...... 105 5.I. Mission Control and Real-Time Operations During Shuttle Docking Flights 5.2. Operations During the Long-Duration Missions 6. Safety Assurance Process ...... 129 6.1. Introduction 6.2. Documentation Structure 6.3. Policies and Ground Rules 6.4. Top Safety Joint Accomplishments 6.5. Top Safety Lessons Learned 6.6. Conclusions
7. Crew Training ...... 143 7.1. Overview of Crew Training 7.2. Training of Astronauts in Russia
7.3. Mir Station Systems and Soyuz TM Training 7.4. Training in the Soyuz TM Integrated Simulator 7.5. Training of Astronauts on Mir Orbital Complex Simulators and System Mockups 7.6. Conclusions and Proposals for the Overall Astronaut Training Program 7.7. Training for Cosmonauts in the U.S. 7.8. Crew Training for Execution of the Science Program 7.9. NASA Astronaut Training for the Mir EVA Program 7.10. Summary of Mir-NASA Crew Training
8. Joint EVA Working Group ...... 179 8.1. Executive Summary 8.2. Structures/Processes/Relationships 8.3. Certificate of Flight Readiness (COFR) Process 8.4. Training 8.5. Accomplishments 8.6. Lessons Learned 8.7. Summary of Joint Cosmonaut-Astronaut EVA
Ill (CONTINUED)
PAGE
9. Medical Support ...... 193 9.1. Introduction 9.2. Goals 9.3. Principles and Structure 9.4. Evaluating Crew Health and Medical Monitoring 9.5. General Crew Training Overview 9.6. Astronaut Training 9.7. Biomedical Crew Training 9.8. Role of Russian Flight Surgeons 9.9. Conclusions and Recommendations for the Overall Medical Support Program 9.10. Accomplishments and Lessons Learned 9.11. Summary of the Medical Support Group's Accomplishments 10. Crew Operations on Mir ...... 233 10.1. Introduction 10.2. Joint Activities of Mir and Shuttle Crews 10.3. NASA Astronaut Crew Transfers 10.4. Accomplishments 10.5. Objectives 10.6. Crew Responsibilities 10.7. EVA Operations 10.8. Interactions of the Russian-American Crews With the Main Real-Time Operations Management Group and the NASA Consultant Group at MCC-M 10.9. Conclusions and Recommendations 11. Science Program ...... 243 11.1. Introduction 11.2. Mission Science Working Group (WG-4) 12. NASA Russian Public Affairs Working Group (WG-1) Report ...... 285 12.1. Responsibilities 12.2. Structure 12.3. Accomplishments 12.4. Lessons Learned and Applications to ISS 13. Applications to the International Space Station (ISS) ...... 291 13.1. Unique Issues 13.2. Use of Shuttle for the Space Station Logistics Support 13.3. Interaction Between International Crews 13.4. Space Station System Serviceability Over a Long-Term Mission 13.5. Experience in Off-Nominal Situations Recovery 13.6. Joint Ground Operations With Logistics Items 13.7. Research of Station Environment 13.8. Russian/U.S. Cargo Integration 13.9. Development of Joint Documents 13.10. Experience Gained in Joint ShuttlelMir Complex Control From MCC-H/MCC-M 13.11. Science Research Accomplishments 13.12. Combining Experience of Two Space Engineering Schools 14. Conclusions ...... 303 15. Acronym List ...... 305
IV TABLES AND FIGURES
Section Table/Figure Name Table/ Page No. Figure No. 1.0 Phase 1 Joint Working Group Structure 1.1 4-6 2.0 Mir/NASA Integrated Flight Schedule 2.1 15 - 19 Dates and complement of U.S. long-duration missions on board Mir 2.2 20 Dates and complement of Phase 1 Missions 2.3 21 - 24 0002 Joint Milestones Template, Long-Duration Missions 2.4 29-30 3.0 Summary of Supply Water Transferred to Mir 3.1 48 Mir Pressurization Data 3.2 50
4.0 Data on cargo traffic to the Mir on Shuttle vehicles 4. I 60 Russian cargo delivered on STS-71 4.2 61 Russian cargo returned on STS-71 4.3 62 Russian cargo delivered on STS-74 4.4 63 Russian cargo returned on STS-74 4.5 64 Russian cargo delivered on STS-76 4.6 65 Russian cargo returned on STS-76 4.7 66 Russian cargo delivered on STS-79 4.8 67 Russian cargo returned on STS-79 4.9 68 NASA 2 (Shannon Lucid) returned individual equipment 4.10 69 Russian cargo delivered on STS-81 4.11 70 Russian cargo returned on STS-81 4.12 71 NASA 3 (John Blaha) returned individual equipment 4.13 72 Russian cargo delivered on STS-84 4.14 73 Russian cargo returned on STS-84 4.15 74 NASA 3 and NASA 4 (Jerry Linenger) returned individual equipment 4.16 75 Russian cargo delivered on STS-86 4.17 76 - 77 Russian cargo returned on STS-86 4.18 78 NASA 5 (Michael Foale) returned individual equipment 4.19 79 Russian cargo delivered on STS-89 4.20 80 Russian cargo returned on STS-89 4.21 81 NASA 5 (David Wolf) returned individual equipment 4.22 82 Russian cargo delivered on STS-91 4.23 83 Russian cargo returned on STS-91 4.24 84 NASA 7 (Andrew Thomas) returned individual equipment 4.25 85 Summary of the mass of Russian logistics material components 4.26 86 transported to Mir on the Shuttle 6.0 Joint Safety Assurance Working Group Documentation Structure 6.1 137 (CONTINUED)
PAGE
7.0 CrewExchangeandTraining Working Group Documents 7.1 144- 145 Astronaut Rotation on the Mir 7.2 150 Scope and dates of training 7.3 151 Scope of training as part of a group for U.S. Astronauts 7.4 152 Scope of training as part of a crew for U.S. Astronauts 7.5 153 - 154 Summary of the typical training program 7.6 157 Practical Classes and Classes on the Flight Data Files, Mir Technical Status, 7.7 159 Structure and Functioning of GOGU Groups and Mission Program Integrated Training Sessions 7.8 160 Cosmonaut Shuttle Training 7.9 162-163 EVAs by NASA Astronauts in Russian American Mir Crews 7.10 173 8.0 Joint Shuttle/Mir EVAs 8.1 188-190 9.0 Dates and Volume of NASA Astronaut Training 9.1 210 Listing and Volume of NASA Astronaut Health Monitoring 9.2 211 Areas and Volume of Astronaut Training in Spaceflight Factors (hours) 9.3 212 Biomedical Mission Program Training (hours) 9.4 213 NASA Astronaut Technical Training (hours) 9.5 214 Astronaut Physical Training (hours) 9.6 215
General Information on Medical Support of Mir-NASA Phase I Joint App. I 216-217 Crew Flight on Mir (NASA 1-7)
Russian - U.S. Joint Contributions to the Phase 1 Medical Program App. 2 218 Space Medicine Program Mir-NASA Phase 1 Research Content App. 3 219-220 Space Medicine Program Research Mir-21/NASA-2 App. 4 221 Space Medicine Program Research Mir-22/NASA-3 App. 5 222 Space Medicine Program Research Mir-23/NASA-4 App. 6 223-224 Space Medicine Program Research Mir-231NASA-5 App. 7 225-226 Space Medicine Program Research Mir-24/NASA-6 App. 8 227-228 Space Medicine Program Research Mir-25/NASA-7 App. 9 229-230 Information Concerning Psychological Support of American Astronaut App. 10 231 Missions on the Mir -- Mir-NASA Program 10.0 EVAs in Open Space from the Mir Complex 10.1 238 11.0 Number of Long-Duration Investigations per Discipline 11.1 253 List of Phase 1 Principal Investigators and their Experiments 11.2 257-260 Table of Phase 1 Investigations per Mission Increment 11.3 261-264 Phase 1 Postflight Reports (Table of Contents) 11.4 265-276 List of Phase 1 Peer-Reviewed Publications 11.5 277-278 Phase 1 Symposia Presentations 11.6 279-282 13.0 Experience in Cooperation from Joint Russian - U.S. Program Mir- 13.1 293 NASA Applicable to ISS
V I The Mir Space Station as seen by the Shuttle Atlantis during STS-86
VII The launch of Shuttle Atlantis for STS-71
VllI Section 1 - Introduction
Authors:
Pavel Mikhailovich Vorobiev, Co-Chair of the Cargo and Scheduling Subgroup
Lynda Gavin, Technical Assistant to the Phase 1 Program Manager I. The largest benefit of the Phase 1 Program was the growth of trust and understanding between National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Russian Space Agency (RSA). The Phase 1 Program underwent many changes from the original program plan, including many significant contingencies and several emergencies. At the end of the program the ability of the management and Working Groups to work together and support each other through all of the challenges improved to a level that was inconceivable during the "Cold War" or even just 6 years earlier at the start of the Phase 1 program. This report contains a brief description of Mir-Shuttle and Mir-NASA program operations, the main achievements of the programs, and also lessons and recommendations for International Space Station (ISS) operations.
1.1. How the Phase 1 Program Started
On June 17, 1992 in Washington D.C., George Bush, the President of the United States, and Boris Yeltsin, President of the Russian Federation, signed the "Agreement between the United States of America and the Russian Federation Concerning Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for Peaceful Purposes." This agreement states that one of the areas of cooperation will include a "Space Shuttle and Mir Space Station mission involving the participation of U.S. astronauts and Russian Cosmonauts." At this Washington meeting the leaders further agreed to flight(s) of Russian cosmonauts on the Shuttle in 1993, flight of a U.S. astronaut on a long- duration mission on Mir in 1994, and a docking mission between the Shuttle and the Mir in 1995. This was the beginning of the Phase 1 (Mir/Shuttle) Program.
On October 5, 1992, in Moscow, Daniel Goldin, Administrator of NASA, and Yuri Koptev, Director General of RSA, signed the "Implementing Agreement between the National Aeronautics and Space Administration of the United States of America and the Russian Space Agency of the Russian Federation on Human Space Flight Cooperation." This agreement further outlined details of cooperation that included: a Russian cosmonaut flying on the Shuttle mission STS-60 as a mission specialist; a U.S. astronaut launching on a Soyuz, flying more than 90 days on the Mir, and returning on a Shuttle; Russian cosmonauts on Mir being "changed out" via the Shuttle on the same flight that would return the U.S. astronaut; and evaluation of and possible contract for the Russian Androgynous Peripheral Docking Assembly developed by NPO Energia for use on the Shuttle. This program was called the Mir-Shuttle Program.
Later, the American side proposed expansion of the joint program: It would include up to 10 dockings of the Shuttle with Mir and would increase the presence of American astronauts on Mir to up to two years and deliver up to two tons of hardware on board the Russian Spektr and Priroda modules. Separate flights of up to six months were proposed for American astronauts on board Mir. In June 1994, a contract was concluded for work between RSA and NASA. This program was called Mir-NASA. The work performed for the Mir-Shuttle and Mir-NASA programs are considered as Phase 1 of the preparation for the creation of the International Space Station.
Initially Tommy Holloway at Johnson Space Center and Valeriy Ryumin at NPO- Energia were asked to be the technical program managers of the Phase 1 Programs on
2 theirrespectivesidesof the Ocean. Working groups, consisting of experts from RSC Energia, NASA, RSA, Institute for Biomedical Problems (IBMP), Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Center (GCTC), and other organizations and companies, were created to prepare the organizational and technical documentation and to carry out the flight plans.
The Phase 1 Program became a formal stand-alone program on the NASA side on October 6, 1994 when Associate Administer for Spaceflight, Jeremiah Pearson III, signed a letter establishing the Program Plan and officially appointing Tommy Holloway as Manager. The Program Plan stated that:
"Phase 1 represents the building block to create the experience and technical expertise for an International Space Station. The program will bring together the United States and Russia in a major cooperative and contractual program that takes advantage of both countries' capabilities."
In August of 1995, Frank Culbertson was named as the Phase 1 Program Manager, and he remained at this position for the duration of the Program.
1.2. Objectives and Working Group Structure
Phase 1 was a stepping stone to the ISS. It was a chance for NASA to learn from the Russians' experience of building and maintaining a Space Station, and for both counties' space programs to fit these experiences into the plans and implementation of the ISS.
The four main objectives of the Phase 1 Program were:
1. Learn how to work with international partners, 2. Reduce risks associated with developing and assembling a space station, 3. Gain operational experience for NASA on long-duration missions, 4. Conduct life science, microgravity, and environmental research programs.
To accomplish these objectives, a Joint Working Group Structure was developed. This structure divided the mission planning and execution tasks into 9 different functions. Each country designated a Co-Chair for each group who was responsible for that function. These Co-Chairs chaired joint meetings (usually weekly via telecon, and occasionally face to face) and were empowered to sign protocols that documented agreements that were made within their discipline. See Table 1.1 for a list of working groups, their area of responsibility, and the names of the Co-Chairs.
3 rj
i
o o _ i_ _ _ .;_ ;;;;,,
o
°,,,_=o d,, •_ o o= .o _ ._
@
,..,, o
0
, g_ _--' _ 0 ,_z _< __ .o _ _-_ _ _ _Y_
0 °_
Z o
o e_ _u @ @
(J (j,
=o
j:: • !000 ,- ._g o,1_ 09 _m
U3
o P" o
c_0 o o
o
6 _ _ _=o o
_ !" J oa O_ r_ _ .= _> _ _,_ ji 0 _._ rj_
7_
i ! 0 _._ _._ _ , .o o _ • _ °_ _ 0_ _ _ .. .- _£-_
_° •n _-, o .£ _ _-= _ .= _ ,,_ _,.S _ _'_
= £ o
o o o o =£ o o o_ •_ 0 _ < _ 6 _° o
_ i _ oo
o o
o o _ o o o
.o
_ >_ _.)
o 0 io _ '_ , 0
o
__ oo _ • o_ = = _o_._
_-_ _ > _>l_._ _._
______
_o
Z
,,_ ._..._ _ _ _ o
o Astronaut Robert Gibson and cosmonaut Vladimir Dezhurov shake hands during STS-71
7 STS-60 cosmonaut, Sergei Krikalev Section 2 - Program Description
Authors:
Pavel Mikhailovich Vorobiev, Co-Chair of the Cargo and Scheduling Subgroup
Deanna Dumesnil, Co-Chair, Cargo and Scheduling Subgroup Lindy Fortenberry, Program Support for the Phase 1 Program Manager Lynda Gavin, Technical Assistant to the Phase 1 Program Manager
Working Group Members and Contributors:
Guennadi Sizentsev, Cargo and Scheduling Subgroup Anatoliy Lomanov, Requirements Coordination
Kathy Leary, Requirements Coordination 2.1. Description of the Mir-Shuttle and Mir-NASA Programs
The Mir Space Station program for 1994-98 was established by taking into account the following contents of the Mir-Shuttle and Mir-NASA programs:
2.1.1. Contents of the Mir Shuttle and Mir-NASA Programs
2.1.1.1. The Mir-Shuttle program included:
Two independent flights (without docking with the Mir Space Station) of Russian cosmonauts on the Space Shuttle (STS-60 and STS-63).
The flight of an American astronaut on the Soyuz-TM-21 vehicle (N o_70), his working on the Mir Space Station for three months, and his return on the Space Shuttle (STS-71)-NASA-1 increment.
• An American astronaut's operations on American science equipment that was delivered on the Spektr module.
• The flight of two Russian cosmonauts on the Space Shuttle (STS-71) in order to replace those flying on the Mir Space Station.
• The return from the Mir Space Station to Earth of two Russian cosmonauts on the Space Shuttle (STS-71).
• Execution of a short-term American mission on the Mir Space Station (STS-71).
2.1.1.2. The scope of the Mir-NASA program included the following:
• Eight dockings of the Space Shuttle with the Mir Space Station.
Six long-duration missions of American astronauts on the Mir Space Station (with a period of residence on the Mir Space Station of 123 to 184 days and with an aggregate period of residence on the Mir Space Station of 831 days or 2.28 years).
• Eight short-term missions of American astronauts on the Mir Space Station (3 - 6 days).
Development by the Russian side of a special docking module and the delivery thereof via the Space Shuttle to the Mir Space Station (STS-74) in order to preclude the movement of the Kristall module from the lateral assembly on the axial before every docking of the Space Shuttle.
10 * Deliveryof American science equipment on the Spektr and Priroda modules.
Installation of additional solar arrays on the Spektr module in order to provide for the power to be consumed by the American science equipment.
Delivery by the Space Shuttle (STS-74) of two additional solar arrays for the Kvant module, one of which was furnished with American photoelectric converters.
• Operations on extending the service life of the Mir Space Station's onboard systems.
2.1.2. Basic Principles in Building the Mir-Shuttle and Mir-NASA Nominal Programs
When the Mir Space Station's nominal flight program was established for 1994-98, the following basic principles were taken into account:
2.1.2.1. All equipment and components of the life support system which are required for the flight of an American astronaut as per the Mir-Shuttle program (the astronaut for the first long-duration mission) shall be delivered to the Mir Space Station via Progress- M vehicles.
2.1.2.2. The American equipment that is to be initially installed on the Mir Space Station, and which supports the operations on the programs, shall be delivered on Spektr and Priroda modules and Progress vehicles.
2.1.2.3. As per the Mir-NASA program, the life support system's equipment and components shall be delivered by Space Shuttles in order to support the long-duration flight of American astronauts NASA 2-NASA 7.
2.1.2.4. According to the Mir-NASA program, the main Russian crews shall be rotated via Soyuz-TM vehicles.
2.1.2.5. The American astronauts shall be rotated via Space Shuttles.
2.1.2.6. Equipment and hardware intended to extend the Mir Space Station's service life and to maintain its viability, shall be delivered bY Space Shuttles and Progress vehicles.
2.1.2.7. Worn-out American science equipment and hardware as well as Russian equipment and hardware shall be returned from the Mir Space Station by Space Shuttles.
I1 2.1.2.8. WasteshallberemovedfromtheMir Space Station by Progress vehicles.
2.1.3. Measures That Support the Implementation of the Programs in the Event of Off-Nominal Situations
The Mir Space Station's flight program for 1994-98 provided for the following measures:
2.1.3.1. If there is a delay before the launch of a Space Shuttle, in order to ensure that one can recover from an off-nominal situation, provisions have been made for the necessary supply of consumable components for the Mir Space Station's onboard systems, propulsion systems and life support system supply to support flight for up to 40 days.
2.1.3.2. If there is a significant delay in launches of Soyuz-TM or Progress-M vehicles or Space Shuttles, or if there is docking failure with Spektr or Priroda modules, plans have been made for a reexamination of the Mir-Shuttle and Mir-NASA programs.
2.1.3.3. In the event that a launch is canceled or it is impossible for the Space Shuttle to dock (STS-71), the astronaut shall be returned to Earth together with the main crew on a Soyuz-TM vehicle. On subsequent flights, the astronaut can remain on board the Mir Space Station until the next docking with the Space Shuttle. Progress vehicles according to a separate contract shall provide life support system components for the American astronaut in this case.
2.1.3.4. If the Space Shuttle fails to dock within the scheduled time, a reserve of time has been provided to allow for an additional attempt at approach and docking. The docking time can be moved back by as much as two days.
2.1.3.5. If a Soyuz-TM vehicle fails to dock, termination of the manned flight program is possible.
2.1.3.6. An off-nominal situation on the Space Shuttle which could lead to loss of the vehicle' s capability to return its crew from orbit to Earth or an off-nominal situation during which it would not be possible to separate the vehicle from the station is not deemed to be credible.
2.1.3.7. In the event that it is not possible to maintain the service life of a Soyuz-TM vehicle that is part of the Mir Space Station, the astronaut shall be returned to Earth on the Soyuz-TM together with the Russian crew.
12 2.1.3.8. Withaviewto usingfavorableflight conditionsin mated configurationin ordertoincreasethetimeforcarryingoutjoint operationsandcounteractingoff-nominalsituations,oneto two reserveflightdaysin theMir-Shuttle mated configuration have been planned for in the flight program and provisions have been made for backup reserves of consumables.
2.1.3.9. If it is impossible to control the Mir-Shuttle mated configuration by the Space Shuttle, the Mir Space Station shall provide orientation for the mated configuration. When this happens, the duration of the joint flight may be reduced, depending upon the fuel supply on the station.
2.1.3.10. In order to counteract an off-nominal situation on board the Mir Space Station which results from the breakdown of equipment or hardware and which thereby places the station's functioning at risk, the capability exists to load a Space Shuttle in an emergency at the launch site within 40 hours before the launch with large- sized cargo having a mass of up to 120 kg.
2.1.4. Implementation of the Mir-Shuttle and Mir-NASA Programs
2.1.4.1. The implementation of the Mir-Shuttle program was carried out for two years from February 1994 through July 1995.
2.1.4.2. The implementation of the Mir-NASA program was carried out for three years from November 1995 through June 1998.
2.1.4.3. The specific time frames for vehicle flights and also the time frames for the Russian and American crew operations are given in the Mir Space Station's Flight Program (Section 2.2).
2.2. The Mir Space Station's Flight Program in 1994 - 98
The following designation has been adopted in the Mir/NASA Integrated Flight Schedules in Figure 2.1:
• The long rectangles show the residence in orbit of Soyuz-TM and Progress- M vehicles.
• The two-digit numbers in the rectangles show the numbers assigned to Soyuz-TM vehicles.
• The three-digit numbers in the rectangles show the numbers assigned to Progress-M vehicles.
13 Thetwo-digitnumbersnearthebeginningandendingof the rectangles show the dates of launch and landing of Soyuz-TM vehicles respectively. For Progress-M vehicles, only the launch dates are given. The dates are given in Moscow time.
The letter "E" in the circle shows extravehicular activity (EVA).
The Mir-number shows the number of a Russian mission to the Mir Space Station, and the number in parentheses shows the period of residence of the mission's crew members on orbit in days.
The NASA-number shows the number of the long-duration American mission to the Mir Space Station, and the number in parentheses shows the period of residence of the astronaut on orbit in days.
• CC means crew commander.
FE means flight engineer.
MS means mission specialist.
The long lines show the residence of the crew members on orbit.
The bold arrows pointing up or down show the launch or landing of Space Shuttles respectively. The numbers near the arrows show the dates of launch and landing according to Moscow time. The numbers in parentheses show the dates according to Houston time.
The doubled diamonds show the docking and undocking of Space Shuttles. The numbers near the diamonds show the dates of docking and undocking respectively.
The bold arrows pointing up, with the bold square on the side, show the launch and mating with the Mir Space Station of the Spektr and Priroda modules. The numbers near the arrows and the square show the dates of launch and mating of the modules respectively.
2.3. Phase 1 Joint Mission Information
Operation Schedules and Crew Members NASA 1 - NASA 7.
The dates and complement of U.S. long-duration missions on board Mir within the framework of Mir-Shuttle and Mir-NASA Programs as well as the dates of the U.S. crew's joint operations with the primary Russian expedition members are given in the Tables 2.2 and 2.3.
14 MIR/NASA INTEGRATED FLIGHT SCHEDULE Fig.r,2.1
JSC/MT3 Manifest and Flight Integration Office AUGUST 3, 1998 1994 i Jan i Feb Mar Apr May i Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct I Nov Dec i ®® J i 08 22 22 i pl 04 11 KVANT 11 222 IL 22_ I[ ] [ 225 PORT (+Xe) ,i i
14 _4i i 67 DOCKING I 25.=: _= eg NODE (-Xe) 217 J i i i ...... i...... i_-
SHUTTLE •ill dVml03/DISCOVERYi PORT (-Ze) i03 11 i
CR(3_tESA CC (482) _ cc_ MIR CREW MI_ 15 FE (:_=82) Mlr 1i i i cc(197) i i cc (12e) i 1 ____:971i MI, 14 Ulrl_ FE {126) : i i
CC - Crew Commander NASA - USA CREW Add two days after launch for Russian vehicle dock date FE - Flight Engineer ESA - European Space Agency (_) Extra Vehicular Activity(EVA) 15 CR - Cosmonaut Researcher Shuttle Docked with MIr xx_l_Oxx (xx) Russian Date, Moscow Time
15 MIR/NASA INTEGRATED FLIGHT SCHEDULE _lg,,re=.tco.,.
JSC/MT3 Manifest and Flight Integration Office AUGUST 3, 1998 1995
Jan i Feb Mar Apr May j Jun dul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec ® ® 15 14 O8 KVANT 7O I 229 ! (1[_ PORT (+Xs)
i 69 i ] I 2,_ J . i _i i Tt i DOCKING NODE (-Xe) ktr i tSTSiTO i STS-6D t 115 18 i j STS-67 • =glo, i Jt i #'-e _TS-74
6! OV-lb4/ATLAI_TIS i i# 0V'104/ Ill s_s-63 , i 20 i01 _ STS-71 i /_TLANTIE SHUTTLE • OV-103/DIS _OVERY io3 tt ( 12 20 ,_/MM-02 PORT (-Ze) (MIRiFLYBY ONLY) i i ' i ! cc., ! i FE 179 J !CC(115) ! MIR 20i iMIr 18 iFE(115) i ESA-CR 179 I ! ! iCC 169 i i j_ cci(_'e ) MIR CREW MIr 19 FE!(76) ! _ _Mli17 i
NASAil (115] i t4 i O7 i
CC - Crew Commander NASA - USA CREW Add two days after launch for Russian vehicle dock date FE - Flight Engineer ESA - European Space Agency (_ Extra Vehlcular ActJvlty(EVA) 16 CR - Cosmoneut Researcher Shuttle Docked with Mlr xxe'-_xx (xx) Russian Date, Moscow Time
16 MIR/NASA INTEGRATED FLIGHT SCHEDULE Flgure,.lCo_.
JSC/MT3 Manifest and Flight Integration Office AUGUST 3, 1998 1996
Jan Feb ! Mar Apt May Jun Jul Aug Sap Oct i Nov i Dec ® ® ®® ®_
KVANT i 20 23O ll'li 72 232 i I_ PORT (+Xa)
2_ O5 31i 17 18 i : i I 73 DOCKING Ji i{ 2_1 ',--4-I _._rode s_s-;"/ NODE (-XB) 5 2.3_J ('r9)(24). t 8TS-aO 23 28 23 18 23i 4H_j _ OV-104_ATLANTISSTS-76i i#i 0V-104/ATLANTISIsTs-,, SHUTTLE 22 _ S/MM_3 16 26i S/MM-04_ PORT (-Ze) ! _ lgT! _MIr22 _ i FE 19 i Mir20 CR_ French i (CNES) CC (194) ! MIR CREW MIr 21 FE (194) ! ! J NASA 2 (lq8) 22
CC - Crew Commander NASA - USA CREW Add two days after launch for Russian vehicle dock date FE - Flight Engineer ESA - European Space Agency (_ Extra Vehicular Activity(EVA) 17 CR - Cosmonaut Researcher Shuttle Docked with MIr xx4l-Q'xx (xx)Russian Dale, Moscow Time
17 MIR/NASA INTEGRATED FLIGHT SCHEDULE Figure2.1 Cord.
JSC/MT3 Manifest and Flight Integration Office AUGUST 3, 1998 1997
Jan i Feb i Mar Apr May Jun i Jul Aug Sep Oct i Nov i Dec i 06,---,18 i _ i r-_ _r_ i i:-- _2_3_3__ _: ® n_ _;: V'_ %_(Inl.m,I)_n_ i i 20 i' d2 ' 06 v_ .... • -- KVANT 234 I • 1 23s iII;'si i235 I i I i2_,_' i I PORT (+Xa) ' i i i " , i i i ' _ i i ,10, !
DOCKING NODE (-Xe) 1_2, i i| i 2, io3 (I5),S ° t ST,._-82i t STS-83 i STS-81 i ,L. i STS-84 I # STS486 SHUTTLE _# OV-104/ATLANTIS • • I OV-104/ATLANTIS. OV-'_O4/ATLANTIS 12 22 IS/MM-O5 15 24i S/MM-06_ i 25 ! as S/MM-07 i PORT (-ZB) ! " i (26) i (07) i
i Mlr 22 MIF_ 24 cc (1as) i
MIRi23 i FE (185) i MIR CREW i CR (20) German (DARA) i NASA 41(132) i ! . IA5,. i 12 i NASA NASA 5i(144) (145)! j (07) i i is ios
CC - Crew Commander NASA - USA CREW Add two days after launch for Russian vehicle dock date FE - Flight Engineer ESA - European Space Agency _) Extra Vehicular Actlvlty_EVA) CR - Cosmonaut Researcher Shuttle Docked with MIr xxe-4kxx (xx) Russian Date, Moscow Time 18
18 MIR/NASA INTEGRATED FLIGHT SCHEDULE _gure2tCont.
JSC/MT3 Manifest and Fright Integration Office AUGUST 3, 1998 1998
JaniFeb: i"ar: = Apri= May Jun Jul Aug Sap Oct Nov Dec r- .... i * i _2--" 38' ® ® IQ® ,_236: i® _®®_ i--1 29:i ',23i 15 i i 15 13 t4 f, 15 16 KVANT Jl 238_ 239i PORT (+Xe) ! 2,o !
i 19!20 i i _ i i i 25 '2_ i DOCKING NODE (-Xe) i i i •sr_.9o i i i i Asrs-- 24 _3 i i • i i04 08 _ _ } Hi _ STS-88 ,o_.. sTS-_9 i " i ,,"-" s÷s.9_ i i _' SHUTTLE ' S/MM_8 d2 12 S/MM-09 PORT (-ZB) (23)(e.1) m
CC 201 i i Mir 28_ FE 201 _ M1£24 ! CR (12) R_.lan i CC (208} i i MIR CREW MIr25 ! i ! FE(208)i F_och _ (qNES) NASA e (128) i(o I)
(23) i 22 ; i "*SA_(_4°} -12 i
CC - Crew Commander NASA - USA CREW Add two days attar launch for Russian vehicle dock date FE - Flight Engineer ESA - European Space Agency (_) Extra Vehicular Activity(EVA) 19 CR - Cosmonaut Researcher Shuttle Docked with MIr xx4'-(h(x (xx)Russian Date, Moscow Time
]9 Dates and complement of U.S. long-duration missions on board Mir Table 2.2 NASA Delivery Return Days in Russian primary Dates of joint mission _a., vehicle for vehicle, orbi_._._tt, missions and operations between the astronaut Mir, landing Days on crews primary mission and launch date date Mir NASA on Mir NASA 1 Soyuz-70 STS-71 115 Mir- 18 03/16/95- Norman 03/14/95 07/07/95 111 V.N. Dezhurov 07/04/95 Thagard G.M. Strekalov NASA 2 STS-76 STS-79 188 Mir-21 03/24/96- Shannon Lucid 03/22/96 09/26/96 184 U.N. Onufrienko 08/19/96 U.V. Usachev Mir-22 08/19/96- V.G. Korzun 09/19/96 A.Yu. Kaleri CNES: Claudie 08/19/91- Deshays 09/02/91 NASA 3 STS-79 STS-81 128 Mir-22 09/19/96- John Blaha 09/I 6/96 01/22/97 123 V.G. Korzun 01/I5/97 A.Yu. Kaleri NASA 4 STS-81 STS-84 132 Mir-22 01/15/97- Jerry Linenger 01/12/97 05/24/97 127 V.G. Korzun 02/12/97 A.Yu. Kaleri Mir-23 02/12/97- V.V. Tsibliev 05/17/97 A.I. Lazutkin DARA: Rienhoid 02/12/97- Ewald 03/02/97 NASA 5 STS-84 STS-86 144 Mir-23 05/17/97- Michael Foale 05/15/97 10/07/97 138 V.V. Tsibliev 08/07/97 A.I. Lazutkin Mir-24 08/07/97- A.Ya. Solovyev 09/27/97 P.V. Vinogradov NASA 6 STS-86 STS-89 128 Mir-24 09/27/97- Dave Wolf 09/26/97 02/01/98 124 A.Ya. Solovyev 01/24/98 P.V. Vinogradov NASA 7 STS-89 STS-91 140 Mir-24 01/24/98 - Andrew 01/23/98 06/12/98 135 A.Ya. Solovyev 01/31/98 Thomas P.V. Vinogradov Mir-25 01/31/98- T.A. Musabaev 06/08/98 N.M. Budarin CNES: Leopold 01/31/98- Eyherts 02/19/98 Y_= 975 days = 2.67 years (Astronaut time spent in orbit from time of launch to landing date) Y_ = 831 days = 2.28 years (Astronaut time spent on Mir)
2O O O
e.; • _'_ t",l °iF, "_ o_o _o
o6.- _ _
oo __ __._ _oid OO
P 0 O
_7 _ 0D _._ _._ __'_
o ii O O O O Z °° _ 66 66 66 66 8_ 8_z U NNNN__c0m
.l=
C'q O_ p-
,°
°,.._ °,.._ °,-,i Q;
_ t TM _J t"_ N <
01 O0 O0
t¢3 _
t_ t_ p.
M J_ M O
[-.. [-. C_
r_ [... 09
o,-q
n_
0 _ .._ o ....N_ _<
O_
0
09
_0
Cq O_
_2
O_ I_, O9
O9 O9
O_
O_
cq ol Z 0
¢¢3
e.i
0 < >
"6
0
_'_ ._.
_ _ _-___I.I. _"'_ ,_I_1 _=o:_2. o _'_ "_ _ " z u _=:__ :_:_:_,_ u P._ :__ :_:__ z<
oO
t"-i 0 ,-.
._ ._ _ _ .._
_,,_o _'_
r/l r_
("4 1¢3 t'-I
.i_ .u
'oo r._ . r_ m
_, < < Z _Z_ Zm Z Z 0
!° °_
o _ao ,._ 1_._ _::l_ ;;_
© o "_
I_I _ _ -_'_
.... _"a "'< _ _a_ _._
,..- c,,I
kP
r_
I F_ o,I 2.3.1 Primary Mission Objectives of the Mir-Shuttle Program
2.3.1.1 Mission STS-60 (Discovery) • Studying U.S. astronaut preflight training methods • Flight operation training for the first Russian astronaut as a member of the Shuttle crew • Carrying out the scientific experiments
2.3.1.2 Mission STS-63 (Discovery) • Launching the Shuttle into orbit at an inclination of 51.6 ° • Shuttle rendezvous with Mir (without docking) • Checking voice communication between the Shuttle and Mir crews • Coordinating operations of the Mission Control Centers • Studying U,S. astronaut training methods • Carrying out the scientific experiments
2.3.1.3 Mission Soyuz TM-21 (No 70) • Learning methods for training Russian cosmonauts • Sending the first U.S. astronaut to Mir on the Russian vehicle Soyuz TM • Flight operation training for the U.S. astronaut on the vehicle Soyuz TM and on Mir during a long mission • Carrying out the joint scientific program
2.3.1.4 Spektr Scientific Module Mission and Deliveries as part of this module • American scientific equipment for the Mir-Shuttle and Mir- NASA programs • Russian scientific equipment • Additional solar arrays
2.3.1.5 Mission STS-71 (Atlantis) • Docking and undocking of the Shuttle with the Mir module Kristall, located on the axial node of the core module • Exchanging the Russian Mir-18 and Mir-19 crews and returning the U.S. NASA 1 astronaut on the Shuttle • Coordinating operations of Mission Control Centers • Carrying out the scientific program • Delivering Russian cargo • Delivering technical water • Returning experiment results, experimental equipment with an expired operational life, and orbital station equipment which has malfunctioned for analysis and reuse
25 2.3.2 PrimaryMissionObjectivesoftheMir-NASA Program
2.3.2.1 Mission STS-74 (Atlantis)
• Docking the docking module on the Shuttle with the Mir Kristall module installed on the lateral node of the core module • Delivering and mounting the docking compartment on Mir so that subsequent Shuttle dockings can occur without redocking of the Kristall module • Delivering solar arrays to replace solar arrays on the Kvant module • Delivering consumables and experimental equipment • Returning the results of experiments, experimental equipment with an expired operational life, and orbital station equipment which has malfunctioned for analysis and reuse
2.3.2.2 Mission STS-76 (Atlantis)
• Docking the Shuttle to the docking module mounted on the Kristall module during flight STS-74 • Delivering astronaut NASA 2 to Mir • Delivering consumables and experimental equipment, and returning the results of experiments • Carrying the joint science program • EVA-- spacewalk of the American astronauts to mount the scientific equipment on the docking module (First U.S. astronaut EVA on the Mir surface)
2.3.2.3 Priroda Scientific Module Mission and Deliveries as part of this module
• U.S. scientific equipment for the Mir-NASA program • Russian scientific equipment
2.3.2.4 Mission STS-79 (Atlantis)
• First U.S. astronaut handover between NASA 2 and 3 • Delivering consumables and replaceable equipment • Emergency delivery of two vacuum valve units and a nitrogen purge unit • Carrying the joint scientific program • Returning the results of experiments and replaceable equipment with an expired operational life • Dynamic testing of the Mir-Shuttle stack for Mir
26 2.3.2.5 MissionSTS-81(Atlantis)
• Crewexchangeof NASA3andNASA4 • Providinglogistics,deliveringlife-supportsystemsfor the NASAandMir crews, and scientific equipment • Carrying out the joint scientific program • Returning the results of experiments and replaceable equipment with an expired operational life and for reuse
2.3.2.6 Mission STS-84 (Atlantis)
• Crew exchange of NASA 4 and NASA 5 • Providing logistics, delivering life-support systems for the NASA and Mir crews, and scientific equipment • Emergency delivery of Elektron system equipment • Carrying out the joint scientific program • Returning the results of the experiments, equipment with an expired operational life, and Mir equipment that has malfunctioned. (the mission which returned the most Russian cargo)
2.3.2.7 Mission STS-86 (Atlantis)
• Crew exchange of NASA 5 and NASA 6 • Providing logistics, delivering life-support systems for the NASA and Mir crews, and scientific equipment (the mission which delivered the most Russian cargo) • Emergency delivery of equipment for repairing the Spektr module, the portable air pressurization unit and the Salyut-5 computer • Carrying out the joint scientific program • Retuming the results of experiments, equipment with an expired operational life, and equipment for analysis and reuse • EVA, first joint EVA performed from Shuttle; retrieving scientific equipment installed during Mission STS-76, and mounting the pressurization assembly on the docking module to repair the Spektr module
2.3.2.8 Mission STS-89 (Endeavour)
• Crew exchange of NASA 6 and NASA 7 • Providing logistics, delivering life-support systems for the crews and scientific equipment • Emergency delivery of the air conditioning unit, compressor assembly, and the Salyut-5 computer to restore the Mir system
27 Carryingoutthejoint scientificprogram Returningtheresultsofexperiments,equipmentwith an expiredoperationallife,andMir equipment that has malfunctioned
2.3.2.9 Mission STS-91 (Discovery)
• Returning astronaut NASA 7 • Providing logistics, delivering life-support systems for the Mir and scientific equipment • Carrying out the joint scientific program • Returning the results of experiments, equipment with an expired operational life, and Mir equipment that has malfunctioned
2.3.2.10 Transport-cargo Progress vehicle missions No 224, 226-238, 240
• Providing logistics and technical servicing of Mir, delivering life-support systems for the crew and scientific equipment • Removing waste from Mir.
2.4 Shuttle Mission Preparation Joint Milestones
Joint Working Group activities to prepare for each Shuttle mission were jointly coordinated according to the "Joint Milestones" specified in WG-0/RSC- E/NASA/0002, as shown in Table 2.4. Beginning with the STS-81 mission, joint milestones were presented as diagrams with specific deadlines and responsible parties.
28 0002 JOINT MILESTONE TEMPLATE
LONG-DURATION MISSIONS
Table 2.4 Activity Owner Template Activity I. Joint L- 12 Months Define in 0002 Joint Mission operations and in-flight responsibilities of both sides/In English and Russian/. 2. US IL-11 Months Draft DIDs for Non-Standard US H/W/In English/. 3. US (WG-6) L- 11 Months If necessary, deliver U.S. Experiment Procedures to RSC-E for new U.S. 7wks before US1 Tmg experiments (for US 1 Training)/In English and Russian/. 4. Russia L- 10 Months If necessary, deliver draft operating procedures to NASA for U.S. hardware 3 wks before US 1 Tins /In Russian/. 5. Russia L- 10 Months Define in Document 0005 logistics that must be hard mounted (during ascent and return)/In En_!ish and Russian/. 16. Joint L-9 Months Start US 1 Training. 7. US L-9 Months Deliver draft IPRD (Integrated Payload Requirements Document) to RSC-E and GCTC/In English and Russian/. 8. US L-9 Months Deliver Basic Configuration Information (DID) for Non-Standard U.S. equipment/In English/. 9. Joint L-8 Months Baseline SPACEHAB ICD for hard mounted logistics (In English and Russian). 10. US L-8 Months Delivery of training h/w to GCTC for crew training. 1I. Joint L-8 Months Deliver Preliminary version of joint system integration documents (In English and Russian). 12. US L-8 Months Deliver 004 Baseline to RSC-E (Launch and Return Manifests)/In English/. 13. US L-8 Months Update Document 0005 with the preliminary list of all U.S. hardware listed in 004/In English and Russian/. 14. Joint (WG-3) L-7 Months Baseline Preliminary version of joint flight operations (In English and Russian). 15. US (WG-6) L-7Months Deliver 100 Series, EID, and Sketches/In English/. 16. Russia L-7Months Beginning of Crew Training at GCTC. 17. Russia L-7 to 6Months Define in 0005 Russian cargoes stowed in soft packages (In English and Russian). 18. US (WG-6) L-6 Months Deliver Preliminary (Basic) ORD/In English/. 19. US (WG-6) L-6 Months Deliver 004 Rev 1 (Launch, Return, On-Orbit Manifests)/In English/. 20. Russia L-6 Months Deliver ROP-2D Operations Document (Basic) (Preliminary Program, Service OPS timeline)/In Russian/. 21. Russia L-6 Months Define in 0007 Overall configuration of Nonstandard Experiment H/W/In En[;lish/. 22. US L-6 Months (7 wks Deliver U.S. Experiment Procedures for new U.S. Experiment to RSC-E (for before US2 Tmg) US2 Training)/In English and Russian/. 23. Russia L-6 Months Preliminary Version of detailed EVA task and equipment list (Rev. 02)/In English and Russian/. 24. Joint L-6 Months Sign Preliminary 0005 list on transfer equipment (In English and Russian). 25. Russia L-5 Months RSC-E will deliver to NASA Onboard Instructions/In English/. 3 wks prior to US2 Trng 26. Russia L-5 Months Update of EVA procedures at GCTC/In English and Russian/. 27. US L-4 wks before AT Deliver series 100 Documents to RSC-E (In English and Russian) Approx. 5.5 Mos. 28. Russian L-4Months Feasibility certificate for experiment program (In English and Russian). 29. US (WG-6) L-4 Months Deliver LDM Timeline input to RSC-E/In En_;lish/. 30. Joint L-4Months Start US2 Training. (RSC-E/WG-6)
29 Table 2.4 Cont. Activity Owner Template Activity 31. US (WG-6) L-3 Months Deliver Final version of ORD (In English and Russian). 32. Joint L-6 to L-3 Flight Hardware Acceptance Testing in U.S. 33. Joint L - 3-4 Months Baseline SPACEHAB ICD for Russian cargoes requiring only passive stowage and Attachment A (In English and Russian). 34. Joint L-3 Months Sign final version of Document 0005 for deliverable cargo to Mir (In English and Russian). 35. Russia L-4-3 Months Delivery by Russian side of hard mounted cargo. 36. US L-3Months Deliver Final Redlines to Onboard Instructions (In English and Russian). 37. US L-3 Months Deliver Final 004 list of all scientific equipment (In English). 38. US L-3Months Sign Final IPRD (Integrated Payload Requirements Document) (In English and Russian). 39. Joint L-3 Months Sign Final version of Joint Flight Operations Document (In English and Russian). 40. Joint L-3 Months Sign Final version of Detailed objectives of EVA description (Rev-02) (in English and Russian). 41. Russia L-2.5Months Deliver by Russian side Soft Stowage Items. 42. Russian L-2 Months Define in document 0005 Russian Logistics: Final definition of Return Items in 0005 (In English and Russian). 43. Russian L-2 Months Delivery to U.S. side of safety certificates for Russian equipment to be transported on the shuttle (In Russian, category 2 certificates also in English) 44. US L-2 Months Delivery to Russian side of safety certificates for NASA equipment to be used on the Mir or transported on Russian cargo vehicles (In English, category 2 certificates also in Russian). 45. US (WG-6) L-2 Months Deliver Hazardous Materials Tables (In English). 46. US L-2 Months Deliver Final 004 (requires Mir Inventory at L-3 Months) (In English). 47. Russia L-2 Months Deliver ROP-2D (Final Timeline, Final Service Operations) (In Russian), 48. Russia L-2 Months Deliver Final Onboard Instructions (In Russian). 49. Joint L-1.5-I Months All Joint Working Groups Sign certificates of flight readiness (in English and Russian). 50. Russia L- 1 Month Delivery by Russian side of passively Stowage cargoes. 51. Russia L-I Month Delivery to U.S. side of safety certificates for personal effects and packages for crew (cosmonauts) (In Russian, category 2 certificates also in English). 52. US L- I Month Delivery to Russian side of safety certificates for personal effects and packages for crew (astronauts). /In English, category 2 certificates also in Russian/. 53. US L- 1 Month Deliver Final version of all Spacehab ICDs, flight configuration mockup of Russian Cargoes (In English an d Russian). 54. US L-I Month Approval by NASA of Russian non-personal safety certs. 155. Russia L-I month Approval by RSC-E of US non-personal safety certs. 56. US L-2 Weeks Delivery of DCNs for final changes to Document 0005 (in English and Russian). 57. Russia L-2 Weeks Approval by RSC-E of safety certificates for personal effects and packages for crew (astronauts). 58. Joint L-2 Weeks Incoming inspection of American equipment for Mir before installation on Shuttle. 59. US L-2 Weeks Approval by NASA of safety certificates for personal effects and packages for crew (astronauts)/In English and Russian/. 60. US 2 Weeks after flight Handover to Russia side identified per document 0005 of urgently returnable cargoes as stated in Attachment A. 61. US 4 Weeks after flight Handover to Russia side identified per document 0005 of remaining returnable cargoes. 62. Joint 1 month after flight Issuance of joint summary report on transport of Russian cargoes.
3O Cosmonaut Valeriy Ryumin and astronaut Franklin Chang-Diaz during a training session
31 The docking module,which wasattachedto the Mir during STS-74
32 Section 3 - Shuttle Integration With Mir
Authors:
Victor Dmitriyevich Blagov, Deputy Co-Chair, Flight Operations and Systems Integration Working Group (WG) (Operations) Vladimir Semyachkin, Co-Chair, Vehicle Attitude Control Subgroup
George Sandars, Co-Chair, Flight Operations and Systems Integration WG (Integration) Bobby Brown, Deputy Co-Chair, Flight Operations and Systems Integration WG (Integration)
Working Group Members and Contributors:
Vladimir Alekseyevich Solovyev, Co-Chair, Flight Operations and Systems Integration WG Yuri Pavlovich Antoshechkin, Deputy Co-Chair, Flight Operations and Systems Integration WG (Integration)
Alexander Borisenko, Vehicle Attitude Control Subgroup
Vyacheslav Mezhin, Dynamics and Structures Subgroup Anatoli Patsiora, Dynamics and Structures Subgroup
Yuri Gerasimov, Shuttle Plume Impingement Subgroup
Evgeny Belyavski, Thermal Control Systems Subgroup Boris Makedonov, Thermal Control Systems Subgroup
Oleg Gudkov, Life Support Systems Subgroup
Boris Ryadinsky, Communications Systems Subgroup Igor Frolov, Communications Systems Subgroup
Andrei Kochkin, Physical Characteristics Subgroup
Vladimir Syromiatnikov, Co-chair, Docking System Group
Don Noah, Deputy Co-Chair, Flight Operations and Systems Integration WG (Integration)
33 GregLange,DeputyCo-Chair,Flight OperationsandSystemsIntegrationWG (Integration) SusanJ. Sheffield,Flight OperationsandSystemsIntegrationWG (Integration)
NancySmith,VehicleAttitude ControlSubgroup DouglasJ. Zimpfer,Vehicle AttitudeControlSubgroup Mark C.Jackson,VehicleAttitudeControlSubgroup
JamesDagan,DynamicsandStructuresSubgroup
ForrestE. Lumpkin,ShuttlePlumeImpingementSubgroup SteveFitzgerald,ShuttlePlumeImpingementSubgroup
C. Rick Miller, ThermalControlSystemsSubgroup RaymondSerna,ThermalControlSystemsSubgroup
HenryA. Rotter,Jr, Life SupportSystemsSubgroup
JimmyL. Gibbons,CommunicationsSystemsSubgroup RonaldG. Clayton,CommunicationsSystemsSubgroup Arthur Reubens,CommunicationsSystemsSubgroup
David Hamilton,Docking SystemGroup JohnP. McManamen,DockingSystemGroup
34 3.1 Introduction
This report presents a joint NASA-RSC Energia (RSC-E) summary of the significant activities and accomplishments of the Phase 1 Program Joint Systems Integration Working Group (SIWG). The managers of the Phase 1 Program (then known as the Shuttle-Mir Program) established the SIWG in November 1992. The S1WG was paired with the Flight Operations Working Group, to constitute Phase 1 Working Group 3 (WG-3) - Joint Flight Operations and Systems Integration. This report is divided into a number of stand-alone sections addressing the work and significant accomplishments in the various SIWG disciplines.
The Phase 1 Program SIWG was responsible for the physical interfaces and interactions between the Space Shuttle Orbiter and the Mir Orbital Station. NASA and RSC-E both have a long and successful legacy of human spacecraft design, development, and operations. Each organization had successfully performed complex engineering design and analysis tasks for many years on their respective spacecraft programs, addressing activities such as spacecraft rendezvous, docking, mated pressurized operations, and undocking. But the Phase 1 Program introduced new and unique engineering design and analysis challenges to both parties. Although the two organizations had previously cooperated in conducting the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, the dramatic differences between the Apollo/Soyuz and the Shuttle/Mir spacecraft sets necessitated a fresh, comprehensive engineering assessment of all aspects of projected operations between the Shuttle and the Mir.
From the beginning of the systems integration joint work, the classical engineering project process was followed: requirements definition; design and analysis plan definition; data and information development and exchange; review of hardware designs and analysis results; and, finally, flight readiness recommendation and certification. "Phough the plan was simple, the work of integrating the efforts of two large, foreign engineering communities posed a number of administrative and technical challenges.
Developing a new, joint process for defining and documenting necessary engineering requirements was the first major step in our work. A series of 12 joint documents was eventually developed. Each document addressed a discrete engineering area, such as thermal control or structural mathematical models.
Many of the specific engineering tasks the parties performed were straightforward and similar, if not identical, to the standard tasks performed for Shuttle or Mir unilateral missions. But new and difficult spacecraft engineering issues were introduced to each party due to the complexities of the Shuttle and Mir spacecraft and the planned operations. The most challenging technical issues presented by the Phase 1 Program, requiring development of new analysis methodologies and/or new mathematical model development, were in the following areas: • structural modeling and analysis • docking dynamics • rocket thruster plume impingement on large, flexible structures
35 • maneuveringandattitudecontrolof large-scalematedvehicles • habitablecompartmentatmosphereconditioning • potable water treatment, transfer, and stowage • Shuttle launch and orbital delivery/installation of a Russian space station module (Mir docking module, or DM)
A final area requiring joint development and agreement was formal certification for flight. Although each party had an existing flight certification process for their respective unilateral missions, these existing processes differed in a number of details. Therefore, the working group developed a plan whereby each party certified its individual spacecraft and equipment per their normal, unilateral flight certification processes, then signed a mutual statement that the two spacecraft were ready for the planned mission as defined in the joint engineering requirements.
Initially the Phase 1 program involved only one Shuttle-Mir docking mission. Within 18 months of inception however, the Program had expanded in scope to one rendezvous and 9 docking missions (all spaced approximately 4 months apart), including delivery of a Russian-built Mir DM for launch on the Shuttle and delivery to Mir on the second docking mission. Further, the relative docking/docked geometry of the Shuttle and Mir needed to be changed for the second docking mission (and then remained constant for the remaining missions) to accommodate periodic Mir resupply and expansion in parallel with routine Shuttle visits. This expansion of the Program scope significantly increased the scope and scale of work this working group had to accomplish before the first docking mission. The time and effort required to complete necessary bilingual documentation for these two very different mission scenarios imposed a large burden on the individual specialists over and above their analysis tasks, since no separate documentation staff was allotted.
In summary, the Phase 1 Program Joint SIWG developed and executed the NASA and RSC-E engineering activities necessary to successfully enable joint operations between the two largest orbital vehicles in existence. Engineering methods and solutions were jointly developed and applied to thoroughly assess the technical aspects of the Shuttle-Mir missions. Several of these methods and solutions advanced the state of the art in their respective fields and are being used today to design and plan International Space Station (ISS) missions, as well as in the design of ISS elements themselves. Also, as the individuals from each country worked together on problems and struggled with each other's language, they forged close personal and professional bonds. This spirit of personal and communal cooperation exhibited by all the individuals in the SIWG was critical to the success of our efforts. We hope that the cooperative personal and technical efforts of this joint Phase 1 Program working group will be useful and educational to engineers working on all future space programs.
36 3.2 Structure/Process/Organization Relationships
To conduct joint activities in preparation for Shuttle missions to Mir, WG-3 was established with co-chairmen designated from NASA and RSC-E. The co-chairmen directed the overall joint operations and engineering integration activities necessary for planning and conducting the joint Shuttle-Mir missions. The combination of the operations and integration specialists from NASA and RSC-E into the same working group was crucial to the success achieved during the joint program.
The systems integration component of WG-3 was divided into technical teams that encompassed the following basic areas of responsibilities on all missions:
• Spacecraft Physical Characteristics • Active and Passive Thermal Control Systems • Life Support Systems • Avionics, Audio, and Video Systems • Mated Flight Control Systems • Approach, Docking, Mated, and Separation Loads (including Structural Modeling) • Thruster Plume Definition
NASA and RSC-E engineering specialists were selected as co-leaders for the technical teams. The co-leaders were responsible for the preparation of joint documentation that defined the requirements, constraints, and limitations for the Shuttle and the Mir.
Each subgroup co-chair was responsible for certifying that his/her respective spacecraft was compatible with the joint requirements for a given mission, and each signed a certificate of flight readiness for each joint mission, for the appropriate technical area. Following subgroup flight certification, the WG-3 co-chairs signed and submitted to the program managers a group flight readiness certificate.
3.3 Joint Accomplishments
3.3.1 STS-63 Integration
The first Shuttle flight to rendezvous to close proximity with Mir successfully tested and demonstrated Shuttle piloting techniques, range sensor performance, docking target lighting, and Mir maneuver to docking attitude capabilities. A centerline TV camera was simulated in the Spacehab overhead window and provided excellent views of the docking target. The Shuttle Ku-band radar, the Handheld Laser and the Trajectory Control System (TCS) laser systems demonstrated the capability to track the Mir Station. The air-to-air VHF voice communications systems were also demonstrated.
37 3.3.2 STS-71Integration
Planningforthefirsttwojoint missions,STS-71andSTS-74,presented someof thegreatestchallengesandaccomplishments.Top-level agreementsfor operatingShuttleandMir together set the stage for subsequent missions and were key to the success of the program. Piloting and docking the Shuttle to Mir involved considerations in jet thruster firing loads and contamination, and accuracy of piloting techniques, while studying approach relative position and velocities required to obtain capture. Positioning Mir for a Shuttle approach involved feathering and rotating Mir solar arrays to minimize impacts from jet plumes and shutting down systems to conserve power as a result. The control of the mated Shuttle/Mir vehicle became the primary responsibility of Shuttle, as a natural consequence of Shuttle's "renewable" propellant source on each flight. Lighting, communication, and thermal constraints influenced joint vehicle attitude decisions. The Mir environments shared by the crews in Shuttle and Mir were augmented by Shuttle's capabilities to produce oxygen (02) and nitrogen (N2) and the design of transfer methods across hatches. Hardware designs and movement of equipment acceptable to both sides accomplished audio and visual crew communication to U.S. and Russian mission operation centers.
One of the early engineering challenges was to design the Shuttle/Mir docking interface that would allow safe mating of both vehicles. A location for the docking was chosen to maximize both Shuttle performance and cargo bay space for supporting modules/hardware and maximize clearance/minimize environmental impacts between vehicles. A design that tied together the external air/ock with the Spacelab module was optimized using a series of tunnel sections and unique integration hardware (bridges, ducts, etc.). A number of existing program tunnel sections were utilized for Phase 1. Most, if not all, of this hardware will be used for the ISS Spacehab resupply missions.
3.3.3 STS-74 Integration
The Shuttle/Mir mated configuration for STS-74 was completely redefined. When RSC-E informed NASA that the Kristall module/docking port had to be repositioned from its temporary location on the X-axis to its permanent location along the Z-axis, the new ShuttlelMir configuration had to be re- engineered. "Clocking studies" were performed to determine the best mix of physical clearances, thermal constraints, communication needs, loads, attitude control, contamination, plume impingement, piloting, and remote manipulator subsystem (RMS) operations. The success of the subsequent Phase 1 missions demonstrated that a key criteria considered for these early analyses was defining a mated configuration that would last throughout the Phase 1 program.
38 InbetweentheSTS-71andSTS-74missions,RSC-Esuccessfullyreturned theKristallmoduleto itspermanentlocationusingthemechanicalarm. RSC-EdesignedtheDM asanextensiontotheKristalldockingportto provideadequateclearancesbetweentheShuttleandMir solar arrays. There were major challenges involved for both NASA and RSC-E to accomplish integration of the DM into the Orbiter on an accelerated flight template including: joint data exchanges, manufacturing and testing in Moscow, delivery and testing at Kennedy Space Center (KSC), and satisfying NASA safety requirements with minimum analysis/design change. Joint cooperation was key to jointly determining and agreeing upon the optimum locations for NASA docking aid hardware on the DM (and docking system) that would serve Shuttle docking for both STS-74 and subsequent flights. These included lights, cameras, trajectory control sensor (TCS) retro-reflectors, primary and secondary targets, and the Shuttle vision system targets. STS-74 demonstrated the use of docking aids/cues for the remaining missions.
Berthing the DM to the Orbiter docking system with the RMS, and docking the combined vehicle was successful, demonstrating that joint data exchange was accomplished, and pre-mission engineering and planning were accurate. Power transfer between androgynous peripheral assembly system (APAS) systems was performed smoothly. Both APAS units and DM systems operated nominally. STS-74 proved to be nearly identical to the on-orbit berthing operations that would be required on the first ISS joint mission.
3.3.4 Docking Module Integration
Integration and operations planning for delivering the Russian DM aboard Shuttle to the Mir Space Station was accomplished successfully in a very short time. It is to RSC-E's credit that they designed, manufactured, tested, and delivered the DM to the U.S. in 18 months. There may be some education in hardware development for NASA, since few changes were made to the design as a result of analytical validations performed by NASA. It is to NASA's credit that the Shuttle launch and on-orbit integration requirements were clearly transmitted, Russian engineering processes were understood, and -- with a compressed mission cycle -- the right engineering information was extracted to perform an enormous amount of analytical work to deal with safety and verification issues in the Shuttle standard integration process. Dedicated individuals at JSC and KSC performed the right studies and analyses, sharing the results with RSC-E counterparts. NASA performed design thermal and loads analyses and non- linear studies on individual hardware elements, participated in DM testing both in Moscow and in the U.S., integrated NASA hardware inside and out, planned RMS operations, and developed crew procedures as well as other integration activities. KSC did an outstanding job of planning and
39 executinggroundoperations,whilemanagingto landaRussianplaneon the Shuttle landing strip, house and transport Russian personnel, and smooth the entry and exit of various RSC-E test personnel.
There was great cooperation at the project engineering level. RSC-E appointed a Chief Designer to head the project at RSC-E, emphasizing the significance and importance of the program. Mr. I. Efremov's effective managerial and technical abilities ensured success in this monumental task of building a new Mir module and designing it to be compatible with a foreign transportation vehicle in a very compressed time frame. NASA appointed a dedicated Shuttle lead to oversee all areas of mission integration. The efforts of RSC-E and NASA project personnel, test engineers, operations planners, and analysts were outstanding, given the cultural barriers and ambitious schedule for delivering and integrating the DM with the Shuttle.
NASA and RSC-E engineers jointly accomplished the task of installing U.S. hardware inside the DM for later crew removal. Defining Russian hardware that the crew would interface with under both nominal and contingency situations took patience and fortitude. SVS targets were added after the DM design was complete. These targets allowed early ISS Program (ISSP) testing of a new berthing tool that will be used to construct the ISS.
The DM, which was carried up and berthed to the Mir on STS-74, was powered, commanded, and monitored via Shuttle systems while it was in the Shuttle cargo bay as well as when it was berthed to the Orbiter docking system (ODS). For STS-74, joint document 3411 was the program agreement for delivering DM to Mir. This document defined all technical requirements for interfacing the DM with the Shuttle, as well as the Shuttle environments (thermal, loads, etc.) which the DM would be subject to during ascent and an orbit. The DM was transitioned to Mir power and control while docked, and remained on the Mir as the new docking interface for Shuttle.
3.3.5 Vehicle Attitude Control
3.3.5.1 Shuttle
A significant challenge during the Shuttle/Mir program was the successful docking of the Shuttle and Mir. The Shuttle crews performed the relative translational control manually, but the Shuttle and Mir autopilots were required to maintain precise rotational orientations. Previous experience had demonstrated the effects of the Shuttle control on Shuttle proximity piloting, but the effects of the Mir control system on this operation were unknown.
4O Modelsof theMir control system were developed and implemented in Shuttle piloting simulations to analyze the effects on piloting and plume. These models became invaluable in understanding the effects of various activities that occurred on Mir, including a brief period of dual control on STS-81.
Shuttle/Mir proximity operations were complicated by the fact that the Russian docking mechanism required high closing velocities to ensure capture. These high closing velocities would make precise control of the docking difficult for the crew and would result in unacceptably high docking loads. Procedures and software were designed to allow a slower, more precise approach to be flown with low contact velocities. This was achieved by developing software that performed an automatic series of firings that were initiated by the crew at vehicle contact to drive the docking mechanisms into a latched state. This software upgrade was implemented on a fast track schedule to be available for the first ShuttlelMir docking flight.
The successful Shuttle attitude control of the mated Shuttle/Mir stack represented a significant milestone in the Shuttle program. The mated vehicle was the largest spacecraft ever orbited in space (~500K lb). STS-71 was the first flight of a large space structure (the ShuttlelMir stack) with the potential for significant control- structures interaction. The vehicle was flexible, with dominant structural modes near the Shuttle control bandwidth. The Phase 1 program demonstrated that a series of Orbiter control system upgrades, developed to provide control of large, flexible, space structures, worked successfully and could be relied upon to provide control during the critical early assembly flights of the ISS. The Shuttle also demonstrated that it could control a variety of mated configurations with widely varying mass properties and structural flex characteristics. The control system had to meet stringent loading constraints, while providing robustness to uncertainties in the modeling of the rigid body mass properties and flexible dynamics.
3.3.5.2 Mir
The basic tasks performed by the Mir motion control system in joint flights were as follows:
• development of the attitude control timeline and preparatory operations before docking with the Shuttle; • support of motion control system passive mode in controlling stack attitude from the Shuttle; • verification of capability and support of stack attitude control;
41 • Performance of tests and technical experiments.
To support Shuttle approach and docking in all joint flights, the Mir motion control system supported the following operations:
• Inertial coordinate system correction using Kvant module star sensors with an inertial system setting precision no worse than 10 angular minutes; • Maneuver of the Mir from the inertial coordinate system to baseline attitude for docking (such as the orbital coordinate system); • Maintenance of orbital coordinate system attitude until mechanical capture; • Movement of solar array panels to position required for docking; • Forced desaturation of gyrodyne total kinetic moment to zero value; • Transition to passive mode until mechanical capture is achieved.
All of the above operations were carried out nominally in all joint flights with automatic motion control, system control and with crew assistance.
During stack attitude control using the Shuttle vernier reaction control system, the Mir motion control system was in passive (indicator) mode. During passive mode, attitude control jets were blocked from firing both by the software and by an electrical interlock, and a gyrodyne kinetic moment value in a sphere with radius of 500 nms was provided.
The attitude of the Mir-Shuttle stack during various joint flights was controlled for the purpose of demonstrating the Mir motion control system capability to execute stack attitude control maneuvers using the attitude control jets and to maintain stack attitude using the gyrodynes. During an off-nominal situation for the Shuttle control system on STS-89, the Mir motion control system took over attitude control at MCC-H request.
During stack control there were from 9 to 11 gyrodynes in the control loop. Various jet configurations for control were used.
3.3.6 Vehicle Dynamics and Structures
Developing methods to dock and undock the vehicles and developing acceptable structural loading and strength for all operations was a key challenge with the influences of both vehicles. Shuttle pilot control of
42 approachrelativepositionandvelocities,minimumjet firings,anddocking contactaccuracywasexcellent.Dockingcapturewassuccessfulonthefirst try oneachmission,withcontactmisalignmentsapproximatelyone-thirdof theirallowablelimits. ShuttleplumeloadsonMir were negligible. Attitude control of the joined vehicles used the very low load Shuttle vernier jets or the Mir gyrodyne systems. Only several hours of high load Shuttle primary jet control were performed to demonstrate its backup capability, since the vernier jets demonstrated good reliability by controlling attitude nearly the entire mission duration.
Structural modeling proved very accurate as demonstrated by the measured Mir response to Shuttle docking and structural dynamic excitation tests of the joined vehicles. Modeling updates were made to the Shuttle model based on on-orbit test data, while no updates to the Mir model were necessary. Shuttle plume loads on Mir were not verified by flight experience since they were so infrequent, low level, and sparsely recorded.
Crew exercise loads were significant, since the pace of ergometer and treadmill exercise excites natural frequencies of the structure. This exercise also uses significant structural life because of the extended duration required for crew health maintenance. To reduce a loss of resources, limits were placed on the amount of time the cosmonauts ran on the treadmill. Shuttle docking produced the highest loads on the module structure; this was deliberate to maintain a high capture probability. Structural life usage from docking was not significant, since the number of cycles was very low.
Mir structural life was a significant consideration since the Mir use had been extended beyond original design intent. A Progress vehicle collision with Mir between Shuttle flights damaged one Mir module and loaded other primary structures in a severe manner, giving additional incentive to reduce Mir structural life usage. Lack of detailed structural health inspection techniques for long-duration spacecraft remains a technical and management challenge.
Significant tools were developed to examine the structural reactions of two mated vehicles. Individual tools were developed to determine loads due to crew exercise, crew extravehicular activity (EVA) and intravehicular activity (IVA), and Shuttle-induced plume loading on Mir solar panels due to Shuttle venting. Loads spectra analysis tools that use Shuttle postflight jet firing histories allowed us to report Mir life usage after each mission. Crew exercise forcing functions were developed based on test data. (All these have applications for the ISSP.)
3.3.7 Shuttle Jet Plume Impingement
Minimizing the loading and a contamination effect from Shuttle jet plumes during docking and mated operations was a prime consideration with Mir large surface solar arrays in the vicinity. The knowledge of Shuttle jet plume effects while approaching and docking with vehicles was limited before Phase 1 and became crucial to the integration of both vehicles.
43 Extensiveefforttodevelopplumemodelsfor Orbiterreactioncontrol subsystem (RCS) environment was accomplished through the use of chamber tests, on-orbit tests, and analysis. In particular, the Shuttle Plume Impingement Flight Experiment provided the plume environment data needed to develop a math model which accounted for the effects of scarfed nozzles and plumes from the simultaneous firing of two close-proximity thrusters. Significant tool development was performed, which greatly increased our analytical capability for modeling plumes and their impingement upon orbiting vehicles.
3.3.8 STS-76 Through STS-91 Real-Time Changes
Vehicle physical and environmental changes became a continual challenge in the Mir program. Continual changes to Mir configuration -- such as Spektr/no Spektr, PrirodaJno Priroda, Progress/no Progress, solar array orientations, thermal constraints, and newly identified (or delivered) hardware--gave NASA a constant challenge in mission planning and verification. RSC-E had to deal with Shuttle configuration/mass differences due to mission payload changes from Spacelab to DM to Spacehab. NASA added new airlock venting plumes and possible RCS jet leakage events to RSC-E's environments to consider. All these engineering challenges were successfully met.
The successful flexibility of the two programs in dealing with changes to each succeeding mission cannot be overemphasized. Sometimes events aboard Mir during the months before or during a flight required significant data exchange, negotiation, and replanning on both sides. Engineering studies and operating agreements to accommodate large anomalies, such as the Progress/Spektr collision, and small anomalies, such as the period of joint attitude control, were performed with no impact to the ongoing program. All Shuttle and Mir systems generally performed extremely well throughout each mission with few anomalies that affected joint operations. The flexibility exhibited by both programs before and during each mission is a good example of the maturity of the joint Shuttle/Mir program.
3.3.9 Active and Passive Thermal Control
Thermal control issues were prominent points of negotiation in arriving at joint mission plans acceptable to both sides. Differing thermal constraints for each vehicle challenged us to come to common agreements on attitudes; providing joint humidity control became a task in system operations management while maximizing water production capability.
44 Preflightnegotiationof amatedstackattitudetimelinewasamajorjoint activitythroughoutthejoint program.Foreachmission,theobjectivewas to findanattitudesequencethatwasthermallyacceptabletoboththe ShuttleandtheMir. In addition, the Mir solar array power production had to be considered in the negotiations. The priority was to find an attitude that met the needs of the Mir power and thermal requirements and the Shuttle passive thermal requirements. The Shuttle active thermal requirements were only considered if the total net water production was negative. Therefore, water transfer to the Mir was not the highest priority, since it was always difficult to meet the other three requirements. The discussion became unique for each mission because of the changes in vehicle configurations and the beta angle profile associated with each mission. In general, Mir thermal specialists preferred a solar vector parallel to the Mir X-axis (the base block long axis) in order to minimize the Mir cross-sectional area presented to the Sun. This would result in less solar energy absorbed by the Mir stack and less of a heat load to be rejected by the Mir active TCS. The importance of this "rule" was greater for missions at higher beta angles and greater if any element of the Mir TCS were out of operation (e.g., coolant loop down as a result of leakage). Shuttle passive thermal constraints prominent in the discussions included main landing gear tire minimum temperature limits, vernier RCS thruster minimum leak detection limit, external airlock extravehicular mobility unit water service line minimum and maximum temperatures, and the orbital maneuvering subsystem (OMS) oxidizer high-point bleed line minimum temperature limit. On the last two joint missions using Orbiters OV-105 and OV-103, respectively, the OMS oxidizer high-point bleed line issue disappeared with the removal of that hardware from those vehicles in preparation for ISS missions. In summary, all Mir and Shuttle passive thermal constraints were successfully protected throughout docked missions. Attitude timeline negotiations typically continued up to and after Shuttle launch for each mission, and some attitude adjustments were even negotiated after docking based on real-time data. Negotiations proved to be routine and successful.
A major accomplishment of the joint thermal activities was the successful integration of the Russian DM as Shuttle cargo. As a result of Joint Working Group discussions, DM system information was gathered that allowed the building of DM geometric and thermal math models. These models were used to perform DM design verification analyses as well as later mission verification analyses. The results were discussed with the Russian thermal specialists, to optimize the final design. The Shuttle provided electrical power to the DM during transport to Mir to maintain thermal control (circulates the ethylene glycol in the thermal control loops and add heater energy to these loops). The pre-mission thermal analyses predicted, and the STS-74 mission proved, that the DM could be successfully transported to and installed on Mir while protecting all DM thermal limits. The experience of integrating, analyzing, and transporting Russian cargo in the payload bay is felt by both sides to have laid important groundwork for upcoming ISS launch and assembly missions.
45 OneachmissiontheShuttleprovidedconditionedair toMir through an air interchange duct (70 to 100 cfm). A booster fan and special bypass ducting was installed in the ODS maintaining the required airflow to other habitable volumes (Spacelab and Spacehab), while providing the agreed-to air flow to Mir. During STS-74, when the DM was installed on the ODS and the hatches opened for crew ingress prior to docking with Mir, the ODS ducting was used to establish and maintain a habitable environment in the DM in support of manned activities. Throughout all joint operations, thermal and humidity control of the exchanged air was accomplished by nominal stowed radiator control, deployed radiator control, and/or flash evaporator system (FES) activation. On STS-74, the FES was turned off (to save water) when the radiators were not controlling. After this mission, the Russians compared temperature and humidity data between STS-71 and STS-74, asked that the FES remain on for subsequent flights, for temperature and humidity control, and accepted the impact to water transfer.
On all Phase 1 missions, planning for water transfer required balancing attitude constraints for orbital debris protection, orbital heat rejection via the radiators, and orbiter passive thermal control. On earlier missions, special measures were taken thermally to boost the accumulation of water for transfer. In some cases, radiators were deployed during both predocked flight and docked flight to minimize the loss of water via the FES. For most of the missions, radiators were not deployed because of the increased risk of orbital debris penetration. When possible, predocked attitudes were selected to ensure thermal control by the radiators without the consumption of water by the FES. In general, on missions with higher Beta angles, the radiators were less effective in the 'debris-friendly' orbiter attitudes, and more water was required for FES cooling, and therefore less water was available for transfer. Leaving the FES on for air humidity and thermal control was given higher priority than water accumulation for transfer (with the exception of STS-74).
A final area of thermal activity was the verification of the various cargoes flown in the payload bay during these missions. In general, the primary payload bay occupants (like Spacelab, the DM, the ODS, and the Spacehab Single and Double Modules) were robust payloads using Shuttle services that were easily compatible with the joint missions. One modification did need to be made to the Spacelab water coolant lines to support the docked phase of STS-71 : heaters were added to the lines to prevent freezing in case water flow was lost while docked with Mir. Normally, attitude control is used to prevent freezing in such a situation; however, while docked with Mir, attitude adjustment would not have been available to prevent coolant line freezing. Secondary payload bay occupants, including the Russian APAS, the TCS, and the European Space Agency proximity operations sensor, also had thermal limits of concern. Either attitude selection and/or real-time operational intervention avoided all thermal limit violations.
46 3.3.10 Mir Lithium Hydroxide (LiOH) Hardware
The regenerable carbon dioxide (CO2) system in the Kvant 1 module was unable to operate to its full capacity due to an ethylene glycol leakage in the cooling system. Hardware to assist in the removal -- to maintain safe levels of CO2 in the Kvant 1 module -- was developed and delivered on STS-74. The hardware had to be constructed such that air flow through the charcoal bed of the LiOH canister would occur first, since the LiOH might degrade some of the compounds to toxic products if they were not initially removed by the charcoal. Special adapters were constructed to attach the LiOH cartridges to a fan on board the Mir, accomplishing the pushing of the airflow through the center of the cartridge radially outward through the charcoal bed and migrating to the LiOH bed. Written procedures accompanied the hardware instructing the crewmen on proper LiOH canister installation and replacement of the spent cartridge. Supplemental fresh LiOH cartridges were manifested on successive flights to assist in maintaining onboard CO2 levels.
3.3.11 Water Transfer From Shuttle to Mir
A significant engineering challenge was meeting the agreement to deliver 4600 kg of water to Mir, both potable and technical (hygiene, electrolysis, waste system flush). When carrying water as part of Shuttle's cargo didn't make sense from maximizing vehicle performance capability, a 'system' was devised to collect fuel cell by-product, and treat and transfer it to Mir. The water requirements could not be met by standard production of fuel- cell-generated water, either in quantity or quality.
For STS-71, a joint agreement with the Russians was established to transfer iodinated water from the Shuttle to Mir for use as technical water. NASA created hoses and adapters to allow for water transfer from the Shuttle galley auxiliary port to the CWC or to the EDVs. Two other types of hoses with quick disconnects on only one end were shipped to Russia. In Russia, hydroconnectors were added to the other end of the hoses. These hoses, one with a male hydroconnector and one with a female hydroconnector, were flown on a Progress flight to Mir. The hoses allowed the CWC to be emptied on Mir into the Russian water system and also allowed the Russian water tank on the Shuttle to be filled.
The water transferred to Mir during STS-71 was used for technical purposes only, because it contained iodine, which is used in the Shuttle water system as a disinfectant. The Mir potable water system uses silver for bacteria control and adds minerals for taste enhancement. When iodine and silver are combined in water, they form a precipitate; therefore, Shuttle water and Mir drinking water are not compatible.
47 ForSTS-74,amethodforremovingiodineandaddingsilverandminerals wasdevelopedto allowthedeliveryofpotablewatertoMir. IRMIS (iodine removal and mineral injection system) was created for that end, allowing the final concentration of silver and minerals in the CWC water to meet Russian water requirements. After postflight water analysis was completed, iodide presence in the water necessitated upgrading to the IRMIS system. IRMIS worked successfully from that point on.
The total amount of water transferred to Mir exceeded the goal of the contract. The transfer of water from Shuttle to Mir was a learning opportunity in terms of water management. One of the significant lessons learned was how much water can be made available if water transfer goals are incorporated into on-orbit attitude planning. Attitudes before and after docking can have a significant impact on the amount of water available for transfer. It is not just the docked attitudes that determine the amount of water available. The timeline for filling water bags can affect how much can be transferred; that is, allow ample time to filI as many as possible. If additional stowage locations can be found to store more than four bags before docking, additional water can be transferred if the pre-docked attitudes are good radiator performance attitudes.
A practice learned from Energia was the removal of iodine from the water and the addition of alternative bio-control substances and minerals to the water. The removal of iodine has proven to be very timely as the Medical Office had raised an issue about iodine exposure to the crew during normal missions. The addition of minerals to the water is a technique the Russians use to insure their crew members do not become depleted in inorganic minerals during spaceflight.
Summary of Supply Water Transferred to Mir Table 3.1 Flight Summary lb Sample Results Comments
71 3 CWC, 16 EDV 1067.4 Contained iodine Re-processed on Mir 74 10 CWC 993.0 Failed iodide Re-processed on Mir 76 15 CWC 1506.6 Passed 79 20 CWC 2025.3 Passed Reused 5 CWCs 81 16 CWC 1608.1 Passed Reused 1 CWC 84 11 CWC 1038.0 Passed 1 half-filled CWC 86 17 CWC 1717.2 Passed Reused 2 CWCs (81,84) 89 16 CWC 1614.9 Passed Reused 1 CWC 91 13 CWC 1219.5 Passed 1 half-filled CWC
Total: 12790.0 (5800.4 kg)
48 3.3.12 Life SupportResources/ConsumablesTransfer
Mir Space Station 02 and N2 generation systems and CO2 removal systems were designed to normally support a crew of three. When docking missions were planned with crew work activities planned throughout Shuttle and Mir, mated air interchange and consumables planning became critical to the success of up to 10 crew members working and breathing in both vehicles. Shuttle capabilities were maximized to provide/boost the common atmosphere in both vehicles. Other factors contributed to the life support equation:
In the process of maneuvering to jointly acceptable docking attitudes and to minimize Shuttle jet plume impacts, the Mir solar arrays were often rotated and feathered in angles unfavorable to power production. Mir systems were turned off to conserve power use. The Vozdukh CO2 absorption system and the Electron 02 supply system were often not in operating mode during docking and sometimes during the joint mission. Joint planning and cooperation in life support were critical to providing a working environment. The Shuttle facilities were utilized to augment/maintain atmospheric pressure, humidity, and 02 and CO2 levels within tolerances for both vehicles.
NASA developed an integrated air exchange model as a tool to evaluate the integrated air interchange system capabilities, limitations, interface requirements, and operating constraints for each joint mission. Pre- mission analysis evaluated the N2, 02, CO2, and humidity conditions and allowed us to plan system usage and construct hardware required for transfer of consumables. After each mission, pressure and humidity conditions were measured. Preflight analyses results and postflight data comparison concluded that our tools were accurate and each mission was successfully planned and executed.
After docking Shuttle and Mir, the ODS vestibule was pressurized using Mir consumables, and leak checked. Pressurization from the lower pressure vehicle, the Mir, was necessary to prevent 'burping' of the Mir hatch. Opening the upper hatch valves of the Orbiter airlock then equalized the Mir and Shuttle volumes. The combined vehicle was pressurized by the Shuttle pressure control system and maintained at 14.7 psia until undocking. Careful management of N2 resources allowed Shuttle to provide the desired pressures.
Before undocking and before hatch closure, Shuttle resources were used to pressurize the combined volume. Nitrogen was used for Mir pressurization and 02 was used for the additional crew metabolic consumption during the docked phase and for raising the total partial pressure of Mir. We achieved the desired agreement of raising the Mir total pressure to 15.5 psia and partial pressure of 02 concentration to 25%.
49 Mir Pressurization Data Table 3.2 Flight Mir Docking Mir - Undock Mir- Undock GN2 GO2 (STS) Pressure Pressure PPO2 Transferred Transferred (mmHg/psia) (mmHg/psia) (mmHg/psia) (lb) (lb) 71 780.9/15. I 87.4 48.3 74 710/13.73 796.4/15.40 199.1/3.85 44.2 59.0 76 737/14.25 801/15.49 193.4/3.74 42.2 61.6 79 729/14.10 802/15.51 187.96/3.63 43.2 69.2 81 739/14.29 790/15.28 190.7/3.69 42.1 57.7 84 734/14.19 785/15.18 200.6/3.89 20.9 81.5 86 620/11.99 780/15.1 189.3/3.66 130.7 75.7 89 643/12.43 798.5/15.44 189.1/3.66 133.4 56.4 91 623/12.05 788.5/15.25 185.7/3.59 149.4 46.6 Total N2/O2 Transferred to Mir 693.5 556.0
3.3.13 Communication Systems
Air-to-air communications between vehicles for proximity operations were highly successful, providing voice communications at ranges significantly greater than required. Air-to-air communications between vehicles was provided by the use of existing VHF radios and antennas on the Mir. The Shuttle used a commercial transceiver which was tunable to Mir frequencies, a new audio-radio interference unit for integration into the Shuttle audio system, and a window-mounted antenna which was stowed during launch and landing. Air-to-ground tests were successfully conducted with Mir before the first flight use on STS-63.
The Ku-band system was used in radar mode for rendezvous and separation activities within previously agreed-to distances. It was reconfigured to communication mode for transmission and reception of voice, data, and TV. An obscuration mask was used during all docked operations to preclude irradiating the Mir. The Ku-band system operated nominally.
ODS centerline and truss-mounted closed circuit television cameras were used as the principle visual cues for docking and undocking with Mir. After docking, the Shuttle external airlock centerline TV connections were used to hook up a drag-through camcorder/speaker microphone system which contained multiple quick-disconnects on the cable to allow use of this system in any of the Mir modules. Performance of all of the TV systems was very satisfactory.
5O 3.3.14 SpacecraftPhysicalCharacteristics
The joint vehicle drawings, known as document 3402, were developed during STS-63 to identify the configuration and properties of each vehicle. The content was expanded at STS-71 to include mated ShuttlelMir configuration and properties. Vehicle descriptions expanded to include mass properties, antenna & jet locations, docking target and camera locations, vents, lights and windows, and alternate configuration. All these critical physical attributes pertaining to both vehicles were required to perform mission planning and analysis. The 3402 document was used across the program by the Safety and EVA groups, and for crew familiarization. This document has been carried over to the ISSP.
3.4 Docking System
The docking system utilized during NASA-Mir joint flights provided reliable attachment and subsequent mechanical and electrical connections between the Shuttle and the Mir during Shuttle docking in manual mode. Following docking and hatch opening, it provided a pressurized pathway between vehicles.
The docking system for the Space Shuttle was developed on the basis of the AI-IAC- 89 androgynous peripheral docking assembly (APDA), which had been developed for the Buran Orbiter. Two APDAs, installed on the Kristall module, have been on the Mir since 1990. Near the start of the ShuttlelMir program preparatory period, the Soyuz TM-16, also equipped with an androgynous docking system, was mated with the Kristall module AI-IAC-89.
Nine Shuttle dockings with the Mir were carried out from 1995 through 1998 (STS- 71, -74, -76, -79, -81, -84, -86, -89, -91). From 1993-1995, in preparation for STS- 71, the RSC Energia designed, developed and flight-certified a docking system for the Atlantis Orbiter (OV-104). The Rockwell Company (now BNA) installed an APDA on the newly developed exterior airlock and integrated the system as a whole with other Orbiter systems (electric power, control, monitoring, and telemetry). The combined APDA and Orbiter systems were commonly referred to as the ODS. The APDAs, instruments, control console, and other hardware, as well as docking dynamics and strength, were developed and certified at RSC-E. The docking system components were integrated with the Orbiter components and were tested on an electrical mockup ("brassboard") of the Rockwell Company. Working jointly, NASA, Rockwell and RSC-E experts tested the docking system at Rockwell, performed preflight preparation at KSC, and provided for spaceflight mission support.
The Shuttle/Mir docking process for the Mir missions had seven phases of operation: deployment, capture, attenuation, extension, retraction, structural lockup and separation. The deployment phase begins when the docking mechanism guide ring is driven from its stowed position to its ready-to-dock position. In the ready-to- dock position, the mechanism capture latches are disengaged. The capture phase begins when the astronauts/cosmonauts maneuver the docking port of the Orbiter into contact with the Mir port. The orbiter interface is forced onto the Mir
51 interfacebytherelativevelocitybetweenthevehiclesandbyanorbiterprimary reactioncontrolsystem(PRCS)jet-assistedmaneuver.Thethrustingmaneuveris initiatedmanuallybytheorbitercrewonceinitialcontactattheinterfaceisdetected bycontactsensors(orwhenvisualqueuesindicatethatthrustingissafe).The immediateresponseof theorbiter,causedbythePRCSthrusting,forcesthethree guideringpetalsoneachAPDAintoalignment.Thecapturelatchesthenengage, oncetheinterfaceshavebeenfully seated.Eachofthethreepetalsontheactive interfaceisequippedwithalatchassemblyconsistingof twocapturelatches.The threecapture-latchassembliesarepassivelyengaged.Eachengagestoabody mountonthepassivemechanismandfunctionsindependentlyof theothertwo. The latchesaredesignedsothatthevehiclescansafelyseparatein theeventthatonly oneortwolatchassembliesengage.Onceall threelatchassembliesengage,all possibleaxesof rotationbetweentheinterfacesareremovedand"soft-docking"has occurred.Thiscompletesthecapturephase.Thedockingprocessswitchestoan automaticmodeoncecapturehasbeensensed.Fivesecondsaftercapturelatching, thehardwareswitchestoahigh-dampmode,whichisintendedtoattenuatethe relativevehiclemotionin adeliberatemanner.Priortothehigh-dampmode,a load-limitingdevicepreventseithervehiclefrombeingoverloadedduring compressionof themechanism.Afterthehigh-dampmodehasbeeninitiated,the load-limitingdeviceisnolongereffectivein limitingtheloads.
Aftertherelativevehiclemotionhasbeenarrested,themechanismisslowlydriven to afully extendedposition.Asthemechanismmovesintoitsforwardposition,the relativevehiclemisalignments,originallyabsorbedbytheAPAS,aredrivenoutof thesystem.In theforwardposition,thereisanoperationaldelayasalignment indicationsaredetected.Oncethealignmentindicationisreceived,theretraction phasebegins.Retractionstartsasthemechanismlockingdevicesareengaged.The lockingdeviceskeepthemechanismrigidandpreventrelativevehicle misalignmentsfromaccumulatingduringretraction.Astheretractionphase progresses,thevehiclestructuralinterfacesarebroughttogetherand,oncethefinal positionhasbeendetected,thestructurallockupphaseisinitiated.Asthepassive andactivestructuralhooksengage,theinterfacesealsandseparationdevicesare preloaded.Forstructurallatching,therearetwogangsof sixstructuralhookson eachvehicleatthestructuralinterface.Eachgangoflatchesconsistsof apassive hookandactivelatch.Eachactivelatchengageswiththeopposingpassivehook. Oncethelatchesfully engage,thestructuralinterfacesarepreloadedat therequired level,and"hard-docking"hasoccurred.At theendof themission,thetunnelis depressurizedfor undocking.Thestructurallatchesaredisengaged,andthe preloadedseparationdevicesprovidetheimpulsenecessarytopushthevehicles apart.Oncethevehiclesareasafedistanceapart,theorbiterinitiatesaseparation burn,completingtheundockingoperation.
STS-74differedfundamentallyfromSTS-71in thatit wasnecessarytodockwith theKristallmodule,whichwasata Mir lateral berth. To do this, an additional docking module was created with two APDAs. The Orbiter APDA was a
52 redesignedversionwithelectricalinterfaceconnectionstocontroltwoAPDAs successively:firsttheAPDAontheODSandthentheAPDAon thedocking module(throughtheinterfaceconnectors).TheAPDAwithinterfaceelectrical connectorsandaspecialswitchingdevicefor switchingcontrolcircuitswasin the Orbiterfor thismission.Theentireconfigurationwassuccessivelydevelopedand testedontheground.
Thedockingproceduresfor STS-74weremoreextensivethantheothermissions. ThedockingmoduleaftAPDAwasberthedtotheODSAPDAusingtheOrbiter remotemanipulatorarm.Subsequently,thedockingmoduleactiveAPDAwas controlledfromtheOrbiterthroughtheAPDAelectricalconnectorsandwasdocked to Kristall. Afterundockingin flight STS-74,thedockingmoduleassembly remainedaspartoftheMir. All subsequent dockings were with the docking module APDA.
Missions STS 71 through STS-86 were carried out on the Orbiter Atlantis. The Orbiter Endeavour (OV-105) was prepared for mission STS-89 after the ODS was configured similarly to that of flight STS-74, with the control circuit switch. The APDA remaining from STS-71, modified with respect to interface electrical connectors, was used for this purpose. This configuration was developed in preparation for the first Orbiter flight in the ISS program (STS-88, flight 2A).
The Orbiter Discovery (OV-103) was prepared for the mission STS-91, with a modernized docking system designed for long-term use in the ISSP. This system uses the so-called "soft" APDA, with the new adaptive shock-absorbing system, ensuring substantially lower loads during docking. The control system of this assembly was altered accordingly, and the piloting procedure revised.
All 9 dockings and subsequent undockings were implemented completely and virtually without problems, in nominal modes. As a result, during Phase 1 the rightness of the designs, joint operations organization methods, approach to certification, hardware preparation, and piloting procedures, as well as crew and ground personnel training, were completely confirmed.
3.5 Lessons Learned/Applicability to ISS
3.5.1 Structure and Process
The organizational structure in which the operations and engineering integration specialists from NASA and RSC-E were combined into the same working group was crucial to the success achieved during the program. It was extremely valuable that NASA and RSC-E specialists responsible for the various technical disciplines wgrked directly with each other. A similar structure should be considered for ISS application.
The first rendezvous mission (STS-63), the first docking mission (STS-71), and the first assembly mission (integration, transportation, and on-orbit assembly of the DM on STS-74) exercised many of the engineering integration and operations that will be required for ISS launch and
53 assemblymissions.TheremainingShuttlemissionstoMir further developed and refined these methods. The experience obtained by both NASA and RSC-E managers and engineering specialists in preparation for and during these missions will be invaluable as they apply their experience to the upcoming ISS missions.
3.5.2 Vehicle Dynamics, Structures and Attitude Control
The Shuttle readiness to support ISS for on-orbit operations in the vehicle dynamics, structures and control integration technical area is complete. Performance of essentially all functions (rendezvous and proximity operations, docking, mated vehicle attitude control and loads) has been successfully demonstrated. The Shuttle/Mir missions utilized the docking system hardware and on-orbit operations that will be required on ISS missions. Also, the Orbiter control system upgrades, developed to provide control of large, flexible space structures, worked successfully and can be relied upon to provide control during the critical early assembly flights of the ISS.
Just as with the Shuttle control system, the Mir motion control and navigation system performed the task of controlling the attitude of a stack with a mass close to 250 tons. The problems of control caused by the lack of rigidity of such a design were successfully solved. Control was provided both by vernier thrusters and gyrodynes. The simultaneous setting of the inertial coordinate system which was performed during several experiments on the Shuttle and Mir enabled a procedure to be developed for tying in the coordinate systems of the modules comprising the station. A procedure was developed for the correction of the inertial coordinate system of the Mir using data concerning the status vector received from the Shuttle. The experience accumulated during the performance of the tasks listed above will be used to solve analogous tasks facing the ISS.
3.5.3 Life Support and Thermal Control
During Shuttle-Mir program flights, the rightness of decisions made regarding integration of the life support and thermal mode control systems was confirmed. The Shuttle environment control systems, with nominal ventilation between the Mir and the Shuttle, had no trouble maintaining atmospheric parameters in the combined volume within acceptable limits.
54 Experiencegainedmaybeusedin ISSoperations.Thisappliesfirst of all tojoint flightsof theISSwiththeShuttle,butthisexperiencewill alsobe helpfulalsoin integratingtheAmericanandRussianISSsegmentsystems.
Thehardwareandoperationaltechniquesdevelopedfor watertransfersto Mir are directly applicable to Shuttle/ISS water transfer. For the first five years of ISS assembly/operations, the techniques developed during Phase 1 for water transfer will be used for ISS.
3.5.4 Communications
The developed diagrams and documentation on the organization of communications during work in joint flights from STS-63 to STS-91 may be used in the future, and were the foundation for development of documents and operations on the ISS.
3.5.5 Tools and Operating Techniques
Engineering tool development and operating techniques were constantly improved during the program by both NASA and RSC-E in all technical areas. Obvious shortfalls were detected at the start of the program and better efficiencies were necessary as the time to prepare for each mission grew shorter. The Shuttle/Mir program challenged the efficiency of some existing engineering tools and created a demand for new tools to address mated vehicle operations. Many of these tools have applications for the ISSP.
55 STS-86 and STS-91 astronaut Wendy Lawrence performs transfer operations
56 Section 4 - Cargo Delivery & Return
Authors:
Pavel Mikhailovich Vorobiev, Co-Chair of the Cargo and Scheduling Subgroup
Deanna Dumesnil, Co-Chair, Cargo and Scheduling Subgroup Sharon Castle, Co-Chair, Cargo and Scheduling Subgroup
Working Group Members and Contributors:
Vladimir Bashmakov, Cargo and Scheduling Subgroup Yuri Kovalenko, Cargo and Scheduling Subgroup Boris Prostakov, Cargo and Scheduling Subgroup Guennadi Sizentsev, Cargo and Scheduling Subgroup Viktor Tabakov, Cargo and Scheduling Subgroup Vladimir Vysokanov, Cargo and Scheduling Subgroup
Robert Bijvoet, Cargo and Scheduling Subgroup
57 4.1 Summary Data on Cargo Delivered to/Returned From the Mir Under the Mir Shuttle/Mir-NAS A Programs
While implementing these two programs, nine Shuttle vehicles docked with the Mir station (STS-7 l, -74, -76, -79, -81, -84, -86, -89, -91).
The Shuttle vehicles delivered 22,893.33 kg of cargo to the Mir, including: 1. Docking module docked to the Kristall module - 4,096.22 kg. 2. Russian cargo with a total mass of 8,627.14 kg:
• Food containers with food rations - 2,515.56 kg. • Outfitting hardware - 4,015.56 kg (gyrodynes, storage batteries, current converters, and hardware for the following systems: Elektron-V, Vozdukh, thermal control system [TCS], telemetry, communications, computer complex, etc.) • Hardware to support extended manned flight - 1,709.70 kg (LiOH cartridges, hardware for atmospheric analysis, individual hardware and cosmonaut equipment, personal hygiene aids, solid waste containers, water tanks, medical kits, flight data files, packages for cosmonauts, etc.); • Hardware to perform repair-maintenance work - 242.42 kg (sealants, tools, special kits for maintenance work on the Elektron-V and Vozdukh systems, the TCS, the Spektr module, etc.); • Scientific experiments hardware - 143.90 kg
3. Water from Shuttle systems - 5,805.46 kg. 4. Oxygen and nitrogen - 567.04 kg. 5. American scientific hardware - 3,768.44 kg, including hardware to support joint crew activities. 6. CNES hardware - 29.03 kg.
The Shuttle vehicles returned 7,839.32 kg of cargo from the Mir station, including: 1. Russian cargo with a total mass of 3,284.90 kg.
• Scientific experiment hardware and various data carriers - 314.68 kg (film, video cassettes, diskettes, dosimeters, Greenhouse hardware, the Incubator- !M control and monitoring module, egg container-holder, container with Komza cassettes, various samplers, etc.) • Hardware to conduct research after extended use onboard the station, refurbishment, and re-use - 2,532.65 kg (gyrodynes, teleoperator remote control mode (TOPY) hardware, Kurs, the Kvant-V system, Krater-V hardware, Alice equipment, communications equipment, hardware for the Elektron-V, Vozdukh, TCS, etc.); • Empty food containers for loading American food rations and repeat use - 296.09 kg; * Equipment and cosmonauts' preference items, symbols, etc. - 141.48 kg.
58 2. Americanscientifichardware- 4,479.72 kg. 3. ESA hardware - 55.86 kg. 4. DARA hardware - 7.74 kg. 5. CNES hardware- 11.1 kg.
Progress M (__ 224, 226, 227,230, 231,232, 233, 234, 235,237, 236, 240, and 238) vehicles delivered 453.97 kg of American scientific hardware to the Mir station.
Soyuz TM (__o73 and 75) vehicles delivered 4.97 kg of American scientific hardware to the Mir station.
The Spektr module delivered 705.47 kg of American scientific hardware to the Mir station.
The Priroda module delivered 856.91 kg of American scientific hardware to the Mir station.
The total mass of American scientific hardware delivered to the station onboard the Spektr and Priroda modules and the Soyuz TM and Progress M vehicles is 2,021.32 kg.
59 Data on Cargo Traffic to the Mir on Shuttle Vehicles (Mir.ShuttlelMir-Nasa Programs) Table 4.
American Russian Water, kg American Russian scientific Shuttle _o_ scientific hardware, hardwar_ hardware, hardwart 121 148.79 485 78.5 l 326.17 STS-71 171.55 (U.S.) 450.36 139.1 172.09 9.12 (ESA) STS-74 226.03 (50% technical; Russian 50% drinking, docking 331.85 ll5(U.s.) 477.23 684.9 22.54(ESA) 860.27 STS-76 (365-technical; (single 320-drinking) module) 410.73 328 (U.S.) 591.5 920.6 238.1 (U.S. 890.05 STS-79 (559-technical; Misc.) (double 360-drinking) module) 682.1 403.7 626.4 729.4 969.1 STS-8 I (50%-technical; (double 50%-drinking) module) 600.76 (U.S.) 562.6 470.8 7.74 (DARA) STS-84 1,171.16 (50%-technical; 1.1 (CNES) (double 50%-drinking) module) 419.6 707.5 (U.S.) 660.6 778.5 10 (CNES) STS-86 1,948.3 (50%-technical; (double 50%-drinking) module) (U.S.) 300.22 594.2 732.5 0.5 (ESA) STS-89 1,477.28 (50%-technical; (double 50%-drinking) module) 319.78 762.50 38.30 (U.S.) 553.4 936.16 STS-9 l 29.03 (CNES) )9 (270-technical; (single 283-drinking) module) Z3,284.90 Z3,768.44 Z5,805.46 Z8,627.14 Z Mass: 29.3 - (CNES)
Z7.74
Note 1: The cargo traffic data in this table was taken from the Working Group joint postflight reports. Note 2: Flight STS 271 performed under the Mir-Shuttle program.
6O 4.2 List of Russian Cargo on Shuttle Flights to the Mir Station
The tables below contain detailed data on the Russian hardware delivered and returned on Shuttle vehicles during the Mir-Shuttle and Mir-NASA programs.
Russian cargo delivered on STS-71 (Mir-Shuttle program) Table 4.2 Description Designation Dimensions Qty Total Priority Mass ea. k8 __o [ELK (Mir-19) 115-9104-300 1060 550 400 2 80.00 1 Payload container (includes: 2 355FK.3000A71-0 850 510 440 1 35.00 2 [ood containers with food rations - EMASS 14.47kg, YTg, personal items (Mir-19). Food container (with food 17KC. 7860.200-01 380 305 123 1 8.79 3 rations) Bracelet article (Mir- 19) K 17.00.000.00 170 110 60 2 0.60 4 42 40 11 2 0.10 5 [Personal dosimeter H_-3M XT2.805.602, (Mir- 19) IB MP-CPD-001 ISealinl_ package 355FK.4000-0 400 300 100 1 2.00 6 Cutting tool (for extravehicular 77KCO. 1751A-0 1450 335 62 1 20.00 7 activity, or EVA) Wrench (for tightening screws i I q_732.F40002-0- 203 50.8 d9.5 l 0.20 8 on the Docking and Internal 04-11 Transfer and System surface) Supplemental FDF (Mir- 19) 203 250 76 1 1.00 9 Gripper (tool for opening the 33Y.6516.003 485 170 30 1 1.10 Various APDA ring structural hooks) hardware MASS 148.79 WATER transferred 485 Oxygen 35.2 Nitrogen 40.0
61 Russiancargo returned on STS-71 (Mir-Shuttle Program) Table 4.3 Description Designation Dimensions Qty Total Mass Priority ml'n mm mm ca. k_ _ Kentavr article (Mir- 18) K39.00.000.00 375 255 90 3 3.30 1
Remote Control Operator Mode (TOP Y) Equipment Single-phase static converter IIOC- H)KEA.435.137.004 248 186 96 2 6.00 2 80PH KX97-010M Device O(,2.517.000 448 334 130 2 19.40 3 Franslation and attitude control unit 110615.8372A55-0 306 285 114 1 9.56 4 (_yno) Power supply unit (BHC) 17KC.30IO2311-0 359 185 284 1 7.88 5 Radio transmitter unit KJI-108M T32.015.226 315 250 114 1 4.80 6 Command generating unit (BOK) 110615.8353A-0A55 375 230 211 1 7.94 7 Power switching unit BCK-1B h 7KC.10IO2704-0 221.5 194.5 76 2 3.56 8 Power switching unit BCK-2B 17KC. 10112706-0 221.5 194.5 76 1 1.74 9 Power switching unit 13CK-5B 17KC.10IO2708-0 221.5 194.5 76 1 2.04 10 Power switching unit 13CK-7.5 7KC. 10IO2709-0 221.5 194.5 76 1 1.90 11 Power switching unit BCK-14 17KC.10112713-0 221.5 194.5 76 2 3.48 12
IM617-1 Unit (LIrBNC-5) XA3.030.073 588 256 261 1 24.90 13 MC57301 Device, Buffer computer 1.1_1143.057.127 301 195 49 7 18.24 14 interface (rlMO) IIIA294 transmitter unit I4112.017.289 585 395 140 2 38.50 15 Storage Battery (800A) HKHJ)K.563534.007 465 278 530 1 74.00 16 Radio station "Korona SK" HX2.000.221 135 125 115 1 2.92 17 Dosimeter assembly IBMP-PRD-001 42 40 11 5 0.15 18 IELK (Mir 18) 115-9104-300 1060 550 400 2 41.10 20 Package of personal items (Mir 18) 230 200 100 2 4.00 21 TA963A-I 6 instrument 14112.158.045-14 190 260 300 1 11.80 22 Power switching unit BCK-5 17KC. 10tO2707-0 221.5 194.5 76 1 1.92 23 Set of books and souvenirs 550 300 200 1 7.70 24 Film and video cassettes 342.9 203.2 203.2 1 3.60 25 Handle (tool for opening APDA 11_732.F1021-0A 200 100 100 1 0.64* Various hatch) hardware Gripper (tool for opening APDA ring 33Y.6516.003 485 170 30 1 1.10* Various structural hooks) hardware IELK (NASA 1) 115-9104-300 1060 550 400 1 24.00* Various hardware Y_MASS 326.17
Remark:
* - These items transferred to NASA after the flight.
62 Russian cargo delivered on STS-74 Table 4.4 Description Designation Dimensions Qty Total Priority Mass mm mm mm ea. kg .No Docking Module (DM) with solar 316FK.0000-0 5094 4902 4510 1 4096.22"! arrays Set of EDV containers 355FK.0010A74-0 643 d334 d230 1 11.20 I EDV cover assembly I I_615.8711- d330 105 6 20.70 2 180A151 EDV adapter 11_615.871 I- 140 60 d40.5 1 0.30 3 100AI5 EDV fill indicator 11_615.8711- 47 d19 - 1 0.01 4 210A15-1 Food container (with Russian food 17KC.7860.200-01 380 305 123 21 132.40 5 rations) Crew Family Package (Mir-Shuttle 1 4.97 Various Program, Phase 1) hardware Set of adapters 355FK.003.A74-0 195 160 95 1 0.58 Various (adapter - 17KC.2061-0, 2 ea.) hardware Clamps 17KC.2062-10-10 6 0.00 Various 17KC.2062-10-20 hardware 17KC.2062-10-30 Cargo in the Docking Module: Personal Hygiene Aids (CJIF) XT4.160.603 225 120 140 10 9.50 Personal Hygiene Aids (C5ff'-3) XT4.160.603-01 225 120 140 25 21.25 Personal Hygiene Aids (CJIF-_) X_4.160.603-07 220 120 145 12 5.40 Personal Hygiene Aids (CYlF-_) XT4.160.603-11 235 120 145 2 1.20 Hair care item IXT4.160.640 225 140 120 2 0.80 Package of sanitary surface wipes XT4.160.003 225 140 120 2 2.00 Kameliya-S athletic underwear KI9.00.000.00 330 230 40 24 7.92 Komza cassette container #_.3.394.017-050 157 238 124 2 7.80 X MASS 226.03A WATER transferred 450.36 Oxygen 26.80 Nitrogen 20.09
Remark:
A - Total mass is based on the results of a weight check when transferring responsibility for cargo at Kennedy Space Center (KSC).
* The mass of the DM with the solar arrays (316FK.0000-0) is shown for reference and has not been calculated into the mass for this table.
63 Russian cargo returned on STS-74 Table 4.5 Description Designation Dimensions Qty Total Mass Priority mm mm nun ca. kg N2 MAF-70 film case d60 85 1 0.20 1 A-12 film case d30 70 3 0.10 2 35 mm film case d36 52 7 0.20 3 Kornza cassette container _.3.394.017-050 157 238 124 1 3.00 4 CA-20M film case 385 d305 355 2 44.00 5 Package with UN flag 320 90 90 1 0.10 6 LUA294 transmitter unit I4102.017.289 400 142 597 1 19.00 7 1"A082 Signal conditioning unit HB,qO.468173.049 216 180 86 1 2.00 8 (BHY) Vacuum valve unit (13BK) 17K.8711-0 318 267 241 5 35.00 9 Vacuum pump 17K.8710-300 330 206 104 3 21.00 10 Food container (empty) 17KC.7860.200-01 380 305 123 17 17.00 11 :'Astra-2" experiment diskettes 140 140 51 1 0.30 12 (3.5" - 4 ea. And 5.25" - 3 ea.) HI-8 video cassettes (ALICE) 61 114 114 3 0.30 13 Greenhouse control unit KM01.010.00 381 216 114 1 4.20 14 _reenhouse lighting unit KM01.010.02.00 368 191 362 1 9.8O 15 Betacam SP video cassettes BCT-30MA 282 114 175 9 3.00 16 !Cosmonaut Preference Kit 230 200 100 4 10.00 Various hardware IKAB6180 container (atmospheric 10360.6180.000 d82 193 1 0.50 Scientific moisture condensate 0.15L) hardware Egg container-holder 101896-500 2.00 Scientific hardware Dosimeter assembly IBMP-PRD-001 42 40 11 7 0.21 Scientific hardware Dosimeter assembly IBMP-APD-001 110 63 21 1 0.18 Scientific hardware E MASS 172.09A
Remark:
A - Total mass is based on the results of a weight check when transferring responsibility for cargo at KSC.
64 Russian cargo delivered on STS-76 Table 4.6 Description Designation Dimensions Qty Total Priority Mass nun mm mm ea. kg N_o Bracelet article (NASA 2) K17.00.000.00 170 110 60 1 0.3 1 IELK (NASA 2) 115-9104-300 1060 550 400 1 36.00 2 _'Analysis-3" unit KM09.066.00.00 215 110 20 1 0.35 3 "Analysis-3" hose 77KCO.8210.100 850 d24.3 1 0.12 4 Food container (with food 17KC.7860.200-01 380 305 123 36 221.00 5 rations) Set of EDV containers 355FK.0010A74-0 643 d334 d230 2 23.00 6 EDV cover assembly 110615.8711- d330 105 12 42.40 7 180A151 EDV adapter 110615.8711 - 140 60 d40.5 2 0.60 8 100AI5 EDV fill indicator 110615.8711- 47 d19 2 0.02 9 210A15-1 Storage Battery (800A) HKI.H)K.563534.007 465 278 530 3 228.8 10 Current converter (HTAB- 1) EHl"A.435.241.001 - 380 320 186 3 39.60 11 01TY "Inkubator- 1M" control and KM10.064.00.00 355 308 355 1 10.00 12 monitoring module Personal Hygiene Aids (C.)IF) XT4.160.603 225 120 140 14 13.10 13 Personal Hygiene Aids (CJIF-3) Xr4.160.603-01 225 120 140 35 29.50 14 Personal Hygiene Aids (CJ'IF-_) XT4.160.603-06 220 120 140 10 3.40 15 Personal Hygiene Aids (CJIF-_I_ XT4.160.603-07 220 120 145 5 1.90 16 Penguin-3 suit KH-9030-400 330 200 170 3 9.30 17 Kameliya-S athletic underwear K19.00.000.00 330 230 40 20 6.70 18 F16-M unit (gyrodyne) with 355I"K.0020A76-0 1040 d635 1 125.00 19 fasteners CA-20M film case 385 d305 355 2 58.60 20 Individual dosimeter H_-3M Xr2.805.602, 42 40 11 1 0.05 21 (NASA 2) IBMP-CPD-001 Soft bag (Cosmonaut Family 11_615.B11710- 340 310 90 2 9.70 Various Package) 0A55 hardware Z MASS 160.27A WATER transferred 684.9 Oxygen 35.2 Nitrogen 20.0 Remark:
A - Total mass is based on the results of a weight check when transferring responsibility for cargo at KSC.
65 Russian cargo returned on STS-76 Table 4.7 Description Designation Dimensions Qty Total Mass Priority mm nun mm ea. kg 3f_o K 1-BKA-03 instrument with three ITY2.000.031 696 460 390 2 148.91 1 PT-BKA instruments YITC-250AT-2 instrument 2AT.949.098 290 255 135 2 10.12 2 2_4-BKA instrument /tY3.468.011 214.5 124 42 2 2.09 3 FI 6M unit (gyrodyne)with fasteners 355I"K.0020A76-0 1040 d635 1 120.53 4 MAF-70 film case d60 85 2 0.20 5 A-12 film case d30 70 4 0.05 6 35 mm film case d36 52 13 0.20 7 Cargo boom beam fragment 77KCT. 1220.01 d164 300 2 1.13 8 Food container (empty) 17KC.7860.200-01 380 305 123 37 37.00 9 "Vozdukh" system drying unit 17K.8721-0 1 2.18 10 reversible valve Cosmonaut Preference Kit 230 200 100 2 9.76 Various hardware KAB container (with condensate) 10360.6180.000 d82 193 2 0.76* Scientific hardware Y_MASS 331.85A
Remark:
A - Total mass is based on the results of a weight check when transferring responsibility for cargo at KSC.
* - The mass of the KAB container (10360.6180.000) is not considered in this table.
66 Russian cargo delivered on STS-79 Table 4.8 Description Designation Dimensions Qty Total Mass Priority mm him rnm ca. kg .No Bracelet article (NASA 3) K17.00.000.00 170 110 60 1 0.14 1 Individual dosimeter, I4_-3M Xr2.805.602, 42 40 11 1 0.025 2 (NASA 3) IBMP-CPD-001 IELK (NASA 3) 115-9104-300 1060 550 400 1 34.10 3 Nitrogen purging unit 17KC.21 OK). 1801 -OIW 321 277 240 1 10.50 4 Food container (with food 17KC.7860.200-01 380 305 123 37 238.53 5 rations) Set of EDV containers 355FK.0010A74-0 643 d334 d230 2 22.99 6 EDV cover assembly 110615.8711-180A151 d330 105 12 41.00 7 EDV adapter 110615.8711-100A15 140 60 d40.5 2 0.64 8 EDV fill indicator 110615.8711-210A15-1 47 d19 - 2 0.023 9 Vacuum valve unit (BKB) 17K.8711A-0 295 200 221 2 I5.00 10 Personal Hygiene Aids (C)-IF) XT4.160.603 225 120 140 14 13.20 11 Personal Hygiene Aids (C5IF-3) XT4.160.603-01 225 120 140 35 28.10 12 Personal Hygiene Aids (CJ-IF-_) XT4.160.603-06 220 120 140 10 3.45 13 Personal Hygiene Aids (CYIF-_) XT4.160.603-07 220 120 145 5 1.95 14 Penguin-3 suit KH-9030-400 330 200 170 3 9.99 15 Kameliya-S athletic underwear KI9.00.000.00 330 230 40 20 6.72 16 Training loads harness (THK) TI-IK-Y- I- 1321 000 360 260 180 1 1.54 17 Athletic shoes (NASA 3) 340 140 10{3 1 0.82 18 CA-20M film case 385 d305 355 2 55.93 19 Storase Battery (800A) HKIZDK.563534.007 465 278 530 3 226.63 20 Current converter (IITA13-1) EHFA.435.241.001- 380 320 186 3 39.60 21 01TY Pen[_uin-3 suit KH-9030-400 330 200 170 ! 2 6.00 22 Soft bag (Cosmonaut 110615.1311710-0A55 340 310 90 1 2.23 23 Psychological Support Packase) 5oft bag (Cosmonaut Family 110615.1311710-0A55 340 310 90 2 8.54 24 Package) Letters 3 0.00 25 [_16-M unit (gyrodyne) with 355FK.0020A76-0 1040 d635 1 122.40 26 fasteners E MASS 890.05A WATER transferred'" 918.5 Oxygen 42.0 Nitrogen 12_ Remark:
A - Total mass is based on the results of a weight check when transferring responsibility for cargo at KSC.
67 Russian cargo returned on STS-79 Table 4.9 Description Designation Dimensions Qty Total Mass Priority mm mm mm ea. kg _ Kentavr article (NASA 7) K39.00.000.00 375 255 90 1 1.10 1 K1-BKA-03 instrument with three _1Y2.000.03 l 696 460 390 2 148.70 2 PT-BKA instruments FITC-250AT-2 instrument 2AT.949.098 290 255 135 2 10.00 3 2AOK I-BKA instrument _[Y2.008.050 256 242 62 2 3.45 4 Air sampler - B (single-use) 259 114 102 6 3.77 5 Air sampler - B]I (extended use) 302 157 102 4 4.54 6 Air sampler - AK-1 (package with XT4.160.007 150 50 10 3 0.30 7 absorbent) Kvant-V system H101.381.311 580 474 370 1 46.77 8 MAF-70 film case d60 85 2 0.41 9 A-12 film case d30 70 2 0.00 10 35 mm film case d36 52 II 0.20 11 Individual dosimeter H_-3M XT2.805.602 42 40 11 2 0.23 12 CA-20M film case 385 d305 355 2 53.73 13 Komza cassette container _a.3.394.017-050 157 238 124 1 3.73 14 Food container (empty) 17KC.7860.200-01 380 305 123 35 29.27 15 Krater-V oven Y12.983.020 830 430 405 1 69.36 16 Krater-V control unit (ONIKS) Y12.390.305 342 246 172 1 5.64 17 Cosmonaut Preference Kit 230 200 100 2 2.91 18 BY _rrlO unit 77KCO.23i0-0 220 220 155 2 6.77 19 JIB- 1 unit [4)(2.000.216 327 285 161 2 13.82 20 Gyrodyne attachment ring 355FK.0020A76-101 d635 170.5 1 4.40 21 LIV video tape recorder BVW-35P 348 296 140 1 6.63 22 Russian blood samples 4 0.23* Scientific hardware Orlan-DMA space suit cover- 2AK-9000-6000-03 1130 670 550 1 77.73* Various package _AK-9803-300 hardware MASS 415.73A
Remark:
A - Total mass is based on the results of a weight check when transferring responsibility for cargo at KSC.
* - The mass of these items is not included in the total for this table. NASA transferred the blood samples and the Orlan-DMA space suit after the flight.
68 NASA 2 (Shannon Lucid) returned individual equipment Table 4.10 Description Designation Dimensions Qty Total Mass Priority mm mm mm ea. kg __o Penguin-3 suit (NASA 2) KH-9030-400 330 200 170 1 3.09 "Forel" suit (NASA 2) F-9101-700 420 410 130 1 3.73 "Sokol KV-2" space suit 2AC-9000-1000 520 440 260 1 11.04 '(NASA 2) E MASS 17.86
Remark: NASA transferred all items after the flight.
69 Russian cargo delivered on STS-81 Table 4.11 Description Designation Dimensions Qty Total Priority Mass mm mm mm ea. kg 2qo Bracelet article (NASA 4) K I7.00.000.00 170 110 60 1 0.14 1 IELK (NASA 4) 115-9104-300 1060 550 400 1 34.80 2 Individual dosimeter HJ_-3M Xx2.805.602, 42 40 11 1 0.05 3 ,(NASA 4) IBMP-CPD-001 Food container (with food rations) 17KC.7860.200-01 380 305 123 49 319.51 4 Set of EDV containers 355FK.0010A74-0 643 d334 d230 2 22.97 5 EDV cover assembly 11_615.8711-180A151 d330 105 12 41.13 6 EDV adapter 11,:I)615.8711-100A15 140 60 d40.5 2 0.45 7 EDV fill indicator 1I':I)615.87I I-2 IOAI 5- I 47 d19 2 0.03 8 Personal Hygiene Aids (C3IF) XT4.160.603 225 120 140 26 24.95 9 Personal Hygiene Aids (CYIF73) XT4.160.603-01 225 120 140 6 4.95 10 Personal Hygiene Aids (C.YlF-fl_) XT4.160.603-06 220 120 140 27 9.22 11 Personal Hygiene Aids (CJIF-_) XT4.160.603-07 220 120 145 5 2.04 12 Penguin-3 suit KH-9030-400 330 200 170 6 18.01 13 Kameliya-S athletic underwear KI9.00.000.00 330 230 40 35 11.53 14 Training loads harness (THK) THK-Y-I-1321 000 360 260 180 3 4.59 15 Athletic shoes 340 140 100 1 0.75 16 Sleeping bag CHM-2MH 170-9061-00 d260 370 4 14.26 17 CA-20M film case 385 d305 355 2 57.48 18 Storage Battery (800A) HKllDK.563534.007 465 278 530 3 227.95 19 Current converter (I/TAg- 1) EH.FA.435.241.001-01TY 380 320 186 2 32.55 20 FI 6-M unit (gyrodyne) with 355FK.0020A76-0 1040 d635 1 125.40 21 fasteners (including the ring) Soft bag (Cosmonaut II_615.BII710-0A55 340 310 90 1 1.91 22 Psychological Support Package) Soft bag (Cosmonaut Family ll_615.BlI710-0A55 340 310 90 2 4.23 23 Package) Komza cassette container _.3.394.017-050 157 238 124 I 2.37 24 Letters 3 0.00 25 LiOH - CO2 scrubbers (USA) d172, 7 287 9 28.62*, 26 Mir orbital complex external 304.8 228.6 25.4 1 1.14 27 configuration training aid ALICE adaptive frame 355FK,0040A81-10i 1 7.85 l'emporar_ transfer Y_MASS 969.1 A WATER transferred 729.4 Oxygen 26.2 Nitrogen 19.1
Remark:
A - Total mass is based on the results of a weight check when transferring responsibility for cargo at KSC.
* - The mass of the U.S. CO2 scrubbers (9 ea.) is not considered in the total mass of this table.
7O Russian cargo returned on STS-81 Table 4.12 Description Designation Dimensions Qty Total Priority Mass m/n mm /Ilm ca. kg ,No Kentavrarticle(NASA7) K39.00.000.00 375 255 90 1 0.86 1 KI-BKA-03 instrument with three _qY2.000.03 t 696 460 390 2 148.90 2 PT-BKA instruments HTC-250AT-2 instrument 2AT.949.098 290 255 135 2 10.66 3 2AOK1-BKA instrument YlY2.008.050 256 242 62 1 1.72 4 PT-BKA instrument $IY2.998.054 114 96 30 1 0.27 5 KX97-010M instrument 10(2.517.000 448 334 130 1 10.76 6 Single-phase static converter (HOC- I42KEA.435.137.004 248 180 95.5 1 2.95 7 80PH) Signal transformer unit (BYIC) 17KC.30IO2311-0 359 185 284 1 8.04 8 Translation and attitude control unit 110615.8372A55-0 306 285 275 1 9.58 9 (Byno) BY ]_I'IO unit 77KCO.2310-0 220 220 155 2 6.95 10 CA-20M fihn case 385 d305 355 2 49.00 11 Optic and electronic unit (ALICE) F/ALI/91/001-002 950 600 320 1 63.50 12 Container of "Antares" thermostats F/FLI/91/003 540 430 300 1 27.00 13 (ALICE) Package of supplemental components - d250 80 1 1.18 14 (ALICE) AMPEX-733 video cassette 295 180 55 1 1.32 15 Removable cassette container CKK-9 _)10934-090-0 255 215 42 1 1.90 16 Removable cassette container CKK-10 _)10934-090-0 255 215 42 1 1.90 17 MAF-70 film case d60 85 1 0.09 18 A-12 film case d30 70 2 0.04 19 35 mm film case d36 52 15 0.32 20 Individual dosimeter H_-3M (NASA XT2.805.602 42 40 11 1 0.04 21 3) Pressure differential regulator (PI'I_II_) 17KC.21IO.6086-0 d210 125.41 1 2.36 22 Vacuum pump 17K.8710-300 330 206 104 1 7.20 23 Vacuum valve unit (BBK) 17K.8711A-0 298 205 222 1 7.40 24 Food container (empty) 17KC.7860.200-01 380 305 123 34 31.90 25 Cosmonaut Preference Kit 230 200 100 2 3.50 26 Gyrodyne attachment ring 355FK0020A76- d635 170.5 1 5.40 27 101 KAB 6180 container 10360.6180.000 d82 193 4 1.59" Scientific (atmospheric moisture condensate) hardware _MASS 403.7A Remark: A - Total mass is based on the results of a weight check when transferring responsibility for cargo at KSC. * - The mass of the KAB 6180 container is not considered in the total mass of this table.
71 NASA 3 (John Blaha) returned individual equipment Table 4.13 Description Designation Dimensions Qty Total Mass Priority nun mm mm ea. kg _ IELK (NASA 3) 115-9104-300 1060 550 400 1 32.36 Penguin-3 suit (NASA 3) KH-9030-400 330 200 170 3 9.14 Sleeping bag CILM-2MH (NASA 3) 170-9061-00 370 d260 - 1 2.95 Y_MASS 44.45
Remark: NASA transferred all items after the flight.
72 Russian cargo delivered on STS-84 Table 4.14 Description Designation Dimensions Qty TomlMass Priority rain mm mln ca. kg No_ Bracelet article K17.00.000.00 170 110 60 I 0.09 I /ELK 115-9104-300 1060 550 400 1 34.00 2 Individual dosimeter H_-3M Xr2.805.602 42 40 11 1 0.045 3 Food container (with food rations) 17KC.7860.200-01 380 305 123 48 322.74 4 "Elektron-V" liquid unit with 10134.5003.00.000 1328 430 341 1 137.90 5 _rotective end caps 355FK.0050 A84-0 "Elektron-V" control unit 10134.4470.00.000 350 320 237 1 8.40 6 "Elektron-V" equipment package 220 180 80 1 1.40 7 "Vozdukh" equipment package 370 190 110 1 6.10 8 TCS equipment package d400 230 1 8.77 9 Set of EDV containers 3551"K.0010A74-0 643 d334 d230 2 24.24 10 EDV cover assembly 110615.8711-180A15-1 d330 105 12 41.40 11 EDV adapter 110615.8711-100A15 140 60 d40.6 2 0.24 12 EDV fill indicator 110615.8711-210A15-1 47 d19 2 0.08 13 Medical packages Xr4.160.608-II4, 225 145 75 2 0.46 14 XT4.160.608-H5 ['16M unit (gyrodyne) with 355FK.0020A76-0 1040 d635 1 125.00 15 fasteners ['15M unit 5AF.369.641 465 310 306 1 25.15 16 ['16-5 unit 6AF.369.835 571 300 200 1 21.00 17 Communications interface module XA3.035.122 250. 150.5 85.5 1 3.35 18 [MCH) 5 Storage Battery (800A) 14KH.DK.563534.007 465 278 530 3 227.62 19 Current converter (FITA]3-1) EHFA.435.241.001-01 380 320 186 1 13.17 20 Fransmitter unit 121A294 HIO2.017.289 585 395 140 1 19.20 21 Solid waste container (KTO) A8-9060-500 453 d330 6 19.84 22 iLiOH cartridges (USA) d172.7 287 12 38.16 23 Personal Hy_;iene Aids (CJIF) Xr4.160.603 225 120 140 14 13.21 24 Personal H_cgiene Aids (CSIF-3) XT4.160.603-01 225 120 140 35 29.56 25 Personal Hygiene Aids (CJIF-_) XT4.160.603-06 220 120 140 10 3.41 26 Personal Hygiene Aids (CJIF-]_) XT4.160.603-07 220 120 145 5 1.91 27 Penguin-3 suit KH-9030-400 330 200 170 3 9.03 28 Kamelia-S athletic underwear K19.00.000.00 330 230 40 35 11.67 29 Training Loads Harness (THK) THK-Y-I-1321 000 360 260 180 l 1.45 30 Athletic shoes 340 140 100 1 1.00 31 Sleeping bag CIIM-2MH 170-9061-00 d260 370 1 3.41 32 Package with absorbers for AK- 1 Xr4.160.007 170 55 13 3 0.30 33 Package for solid-fuel oxygen 355FK.0060A84-10 d250 300 1 1.96 34 generator (TFK) 355FK.0060A84-20 Soft bag (Cosmonaut 1l_615.B1710-0A55 340 310 90 1 5.22 35 Psychological Support Package) Soft bag (Cosmonaut Family 11_615.BI710-0A55 340 310 90 2 10.67 36 iPackage) iX MASS 1,171.16A WATER transferred [ 470.8 Oxygen 22 ,Nitrogen 18.5 Remark: A - Total mass is based on the results of a weight check when transferring responsibility for cargo at KSC.
73 Russian cargo returned on STS-84 Table 4.15 Description Designation Dimensions Qty Total Mass Priority mm mm mrn ea. kg _ Kentavr article K39.00.000.00 375 255 90 1 0.55 1 K 1-BKA-35 instrument with three ,qY2.000.036 696 460 390 1 74.45 2 PT-BKA instruments K1-BKA-03 instrument with one PT-BKA ,qY2.000.031-03 696 460 390 1 71.55 3 instrument HTC-250AT-2 instrument 2AT.949.098 290 255 135 1 4.82 4 2q_4-BKA instrument ,qY3.468.01 I 214.5 124 42 2 2.18 5 "Elektron-V" liquid unit with protective 10134.5003.00.000, 1328 430 341 1 135.30 6 end caps 355FK.0050 A84-0 LHA009 instrument 14102.007.016 280 80 170 1 2.40 7 Transmitter unit IIirA294 14102.017.289 585 395 140 3 57.90 8 CA-20M film case 385 d305 355 2 54.14 9 Digital User Exchange Unit (MOHrA-02) XA2.082.035 560.5 260.5 258.5 1 19.66 10 _5mm film case d36 52 6 0.18 II AMPEX-733 cassettes 295 180 55 1 1.35 12 Individual dosimeter H_-3M XT2.805.602 42 40 11 1 0.05 13 Filter FOA 10191.5274.000 230 d248 1 6.50 14 3175I-1 filter 10133.4029.000 300 309 342 2 30.90 15 Solid Fuel Oxygen Generator with 6477.000 720 280 235 I 9.72 16 _acka_e Package with absorbers for AK-1 XT4.160.007 170 55 13 1 0.10 17 Gyrodyne attachment ring 355FK.0020A76-101 d635 170.5 1 4.39 18 "Skorost" facility combustion chamber 17KC.7010.1001-0 360 218 124 1 1.90 19 3.5" diskette with "Astra-2" experiment I04 I04 4.0 3 0.05 20 Condensate Water Recovery System 1700, d30, 1 2.00 21 (CPB-K2) pipe 350 d8 Cosmonaut Preference Kit 230 200 100 2 1.16 22 Acoustic guitar PCT PCq>CP 83-72 940 340 110 1 1.69 23 Food container (empty) 17KC.7860.200-01 380 305 123 63 117.82 24 KAB container (with condensate) 10360.6180.000 d82 193 2 0.91 * Scientific hardware MASS 600.76A
Remark: * - The mass of the KAB container (10360.6180.000) has not been considered in the total mass of this table.
A - Total mass is based on the results of a weight check when transferring responsibility for cargo at KSC
74 NASA 3 and NASA 4 (Jerry Linenger) returned individual equipment Table 4.16 Description Designation Dimensions Qty To_lMass Priority nun mm mm ca. kg _ "Sokol KV-2" space suit, NASA 3 12AC-9000- 1000 520 440 260 1 9.55 (John Blaha) "Sokol KV-2" space suit, NASA 4 2AC-9000-1000 520 440 260 1 9.05 (Jerry Linenger) Pen[_uin-3 suit (NASA 4) KH-9030-400 330 200 170 4 12.32 Sleeping bag CI1M-2MH (NASA 4) 170-9061-00 370 d260 2 6.72 Orlan-M space suit gloves FH- 10K-2-1060026 300 120 120 1 pairl 1.14 IELK cover (NASA 4) 115-9104-340 1 0.80 Seat liner (NASA 4) from the IELK ]I_VI.Yl 1 4.90 Light cargo (NASA 4) from the ]INI.JI 1 3.50 IELK MASS 47,98
Remark: NASA returned all items after the flight.
75 Russian cargo delivered on STS-86 Table 4.17 Description Designation Dimensions Qty Total Priority Mass _ nqm ea. kg _ Bracelet article (NASA 6) K17.00.000.00 170 110 60 1 0.15 l [ELK (NASA 6) 115-9104-300 1060 550 400 1 30.85 2 Individual dosimeter H_-3M (NASA 6) XT2.805.602 42 40 11 1 0.025 3 Food container (with food rations) 17KC.7860.200-01 380 305 123 80 484.17 4 Air pressurization unit (BHI-I) (full) [email protected] 386 750 362 3 131.00 5 11M617-1 unit (I_IrBYC-5) XA3.030.073 588 256 261 1 25.02 6 Set of EDV containers 355FK.0010A74-0 643 d334 d230 1 11.15 7 EDV cover assembly [email protected] d 330 105 6 20.35 8 EDV adapter [email protected] 140 60 d402 1 0.26 9 EDV fill indicator [email protected] 47 d 19 1 0.01 10 Solid waste container (KTO) A8-9060-500 453 d 330 5 16.50 11 Vacuum valve unit (BBK) 17K.8711A-0 295 200 22I 2 15.46 12 F16M unit (_/a'odyne) with fasteners 355FK.0020A76-0 1040 d 635 1 122.58 13 F15M unit 6AF.369.641 456 340 306 1 25.20 14 F16-5 unit 6AF.369.835 571 300 200 1 20.70 15 Storage Battery (800A) _dll)K.563534.007 465 278 530 9 682.25 16 Current converter (I1TAB- 1) EHFA.435.241.001-01 380 32O 186 2 26.58 17 Personal Hygiene Aids (C J-IF) XT4.160.603 225 120 140 25 23.47 18 Personal Hygiene Aids (CJIF-3) XT4.160.603-01 225 120 140 40 33.74 19 Personal Hygiene Aids (CJIF-_) Xr4.160.603-06 220 120 140 2O 6.74 20 Personal Hygiene Aids (CYIF-_) XT4.160.603-07 220 120 145 5 1.85 21 Penguin-3 suit KH-9030-400 330 200 170 5 16.07 22 Kameliya-S athletic underwear K19.00.000.00 330 230 40 60 18.43 23 Training Loads Harness (THK) rHK-Y-l-1321.000 360 260 180 1 1.51 24 Athletic shoes 340 140 100 1 0.81 25 Sleeping ba_; CHM-2MH 170-9061-00 d 260 370 1 3.49 26 Opera_rres_a_forrepai_ng_e _olararray Base (with link rod) 377KCO-3157-520 600 460 235 2 8.50 27 Anchor _377KCO-3157-540 550 550 230 2 7.80 28 Rack 77KM-3157-360 1350 500 60 2 1.79 29 Rod _377KCO-3157-550 996 132 40 2 3.60 30 Rack 977KCO-3157-300 270 d 100 2 1.09 31 Solar array repair parts: Beam 77KCO-5805-100 Bracket (for Option 5f_o2) 77KCO-5805-301 1280400 470230 240400 I 1 I 18.316.26 3332 _lechanism for sealing the Solar array pod: Sealing cover with Mechanical d 800 581 1 66.40 34 Assembly and Accessories 'Handle bar 77KCO-5806-300 760 155 135 1 2.80 35
76 Russian cargo delivered on STS-86 cont. Table 4.17 cont. Description Designation Dimensions Qty Total Priority Mass mmI mm I mm ea. k_ jg_o Hull sealing equipment: Sealant Applicator 17KC.139640-0 620 420 230 4 44.54 36 Clamp 17KC.B9329-5000 500 300 120 2 7.08 37 Package offlanges, 8 ea. 17KC.B9329-5020 180 120 120 1 2.83 38 Package offlanges, 12 ea. 17KC.139329-5030 250 120 120 1 4.20 39 Clamp 17KC.B9329-6000 300 260 250 2 5.63 40 Clamp ! 7KC.B9329-7000 300 260 150 2 4.78 41 Brush 17KC.B9329-240 375 140 50 2 0.83 42 Set of caps 17KC.B9329-8000 300 210 300 1 6.60 43 Vacuum cleaner bags (USA) SEG39123308-301 10 0.45 44 Soft bag (Cosmonaut Psychological 11_615.131710-0A55 340 310 90 1 3.90 45 Support Package) Soft bag (Cosmonaut Family II_615.BI710-0A55 340 310 90 2 6.85 46 Package) LiOH cartridges (USA) d172.7 287 8 25.44 47 VHS video cassette with MF-H 180 100 20 1 0.23 instructions for Spektr module repair Protective end caps with fasteners _55FK.0050A84-50 d 353 71 1 Temporary _(for Elektron-V liquid unit) 355FK.0050A84-20 d 380 155 1 6.45* transfer i_ MASS 1,948.27A IWATER transferred 780 IOxygen 34 Nitrogen 59
Remark: * - The mass of the protective end caps with fasteners (for the Elektron-V liquid unit) has not been considered in the total mass for this table.
A - Total mass is based on the results of a weight check when transferring responsibility for cargo at KSC.
77 Russian cargo returned on STS-86 Table 4.18 Dimensions Unit Qty Total Priority Description Designation weight weisht mm mm mm kg ea. kg __o Kentavr article K39.00.000.00 375 255 90 1.10 1 1.10 1 Instrument K 1-BKA-03 with one $I3,'2.000.031-03 696 460 390 69.50 1 71.50 2 PT-BKA instrument 2O4-BKA instrument $1Y3.468.011 214.5 124 42 1.05 1 1.10 Sorbent set CCK 0697 410 250 230 6.5 1 5.90 "Elektron-V" liquid unit with protective 10134.5003.00.000, 1328 430 341 134.1 1 138.05 end caps 355FK.0050A84-0 "Elektron-V" control unit 10134.4470.00.000 350 320 237 8.5 1 8.15 6 Fan 17K.8710-380 367 d 120 4.00 4 14.90 7 11M617-1 unit (IJ_YC-5) XA3.030.073 588 256 261 28.00 1 24.70 8 Vacuum valve unit (BBK) 17K.8711A-0 295 200 221 7.3 2 14.20 9 11I_003 unit [4102.000.166 710 576 270 46.6 1 47.45 10 HI-8 video cassette E5-90-HMEX 110 75 20 0.10 4 0.40 11 Individual dosimeter H_-3M (NASA 5) XT2.805.602 42 40 11 0.05 1 0.025 12 Gyrodyne attachment ring 355FK.0020A76-101 d635 170.5 5.40 1 4.45 13 Food container (empty) 17KC.7860.200-01 380 305 123 1.00 55 55.00 14 Cosmonaut Preference Kit 230 200 100 3.00 3 8.25 15 Science Hardware Platform I/HA-2 7KC.2482-0 820 300 150 10.62 1 9.55 16 Science Hardware Platform IIHA-3 I17KC.2483-0 820 300 150 17.85 1 11.90 17 AK- 1 sampler XT4.160.007 150 50 10 0.1 1 0.05 18 Package of condensate samples 1_615.8615-0A15 310 100 60 0.21 1 0.21 19 Betacam SP video cassette BCT-30MA I75 115 31 0.31 9 2.95 20
Y_MASS 419.6A
Remark: A - Total mass is based on the results of a weight check when transferring responsibility for cargo at KSC.
78 NASA 5 (Michael Foale) returned individual equipment Table 4.19 Description Designation Dimensions Qty Total Mass mm mm mm ea. kg IELK (NASA 5) 115-9104-300 1060 550 400 1 34.00 Penguin-3 suit (NASA 5) KH-9030-400 330 200 170 1 3.00 Sleeping bag CFIM-2MH (NASA 170-9061-00 370 d260 1 3.41 5) Training Loads Harness (THK) THK-Y-1- 360 260 180 1 1.45 (NASA 5) ! 1.000 Athletic shoes (NASA 5) 340 140 100 1 1.00 FIK- 14 flight suit 2AF-9004-1000 1 1.75 Clothing ? Not inventoried Operator coveralls K41.00.000.00 2.10 Package H3OF jq_o53 XT2.787.001 0.50 Box with personal hygiene kit XT6.875.057 1.00 Komfort-1) XT2.945.602 E MASS 48.21
Remark: NASA transferred all items after the flight.
79 Russian cargo delivered on STS-89 Table 4.20 Description Designation Dimensions Qty Total Mass IPriority mm mm mm ea. k_ _ Bracelet article (NASA 7) K17.00.000.00 170 110 60 1 0.15 1 /ELK (NASA 7) 115-9104-300 1060 550 400 1 31.14 2 Individual dosimeter H_-3M XT2.805.602 42 40 11 1 0.025 3 Food container (w/joint food rations) 17KC.7860.200-01 380 305 123 77 453.15 4 Air pressurization unit (BHII) (full) 1I_732.BI721-0A101 368 750 362 2 86.40 5 Set of EDV containers 355FK.0010A74-0 643 d334 d230 2 22.40 6 EDV cover assembly 11(I)615.8711-180A15-1 d330 105 12 40.75 7 EDV adapter 11(I)615.8711-100A15 140 60 d40.5 2 0.54 8 EDV fill indicator 11(I)615.8711-210AI 5-1 47 d19 2 0.03 9 Solid waste container (KTO) A8-9060-500 453 d330 4 13.28 10 Air conditioning unit (BKB-3) with KBO.6705.00.000 615 625 855 1 82.35 11 protective cover Compressor unit (BKB-3) KBO. 1565.000-01 350 d200 1 24.99 12 11M617-10 unit (H/BYC-5) XA3.030.073 588 256 261 1 24.99 13 Central Exchange Module 11M617-2 XA3.031.104 250.5 275.5 158.5 1 9.44 14 (H,MO) with 2 cables for the IIMO Soft trash bag (KBO) 11_615.8715-0A15-01 310 310 100 10 8.35 15 ?'! 6M unit (gyrodyne) with fasteners 355FK.0020A76-0 1040 d635 - 1 125.00 16 FI5M unit 6AF.369.641 456 340 306 1 25.00 17 F16-5 unit 6AF.369.835 571 300 200 1 20.75 18 Storage Battery (800A) [4_KIIDK.563534.007 465 278 530 4 304.80 19 Current converter (IITAB- I) EHFA.435.241.001-01 380 320 186 3 40.22 20 Personal Hygiene Aids (CJIF) (T4.160.603 225 120 140 25 23.44 21 Personal Hy_;iene Aids (CYIF-3) XT4.160.603-01 225 120 140 60 50.39 22 Personal Hyl_iene Aids (CYIF-_) XT4.160.603-06 220 120 140 20 6.97 23 Personal Hygiene Aids (CflF-fl_) Xr4.160.603-07 220 120 145 5 2.11 24 Penguin-3 suit KH-9030-400 330 200 170 5 14.72 25 Kameliya-S athletic suit K19.00.000.00 330 230 40 60 19.55 26 Training Loads Harness (THK) _HK-Y-I-1321.000 360 260 180 1 1.50 27 Athletic shoes 340 140 100 1 0.90 28 Sleepin_ bag CI-IM-2MH 170-9061-00 d260 370 1 3.31 29 Soft bag (Cosmonaut Psychological II_615.BI710-0A55 340 310 90 1 5.88 30 Support Package) Soft bag (Cosmonaut Family II_615.B1710-0A55 340 310 90 2 9.25 31 Package) FI5M unit 6AF.369.641 456 340 306 1 25.50 32 Y MASS 1,477.28A WATER transferred 732.5 Oxygen 25.64 Nitrogen 60.6 Remark: A - Total mass is based on the results of a weight check when transferring responsibility for cargo at KSC.
8O Russian cargo returned on STS-89 Table 4.21 Description Designation Dimensions Qty Total Priority Mass
mill ea, k_ __o Kentavr article (NASA 6) K39.00.000.00 375 255 90 1 1.10 1 F16M unit (gyrodyne) with 355FK.0020A76-0 1040 d635 1 125.80 2 fasteners K.B 106A synchronizer T_2.050.956 263 244 218 1 6.10 3 Solar array panel (MCB) in 17KC.5810-0; 1370 700 390 1 44.55 4 transport container 11_615.B 1700-500A55.37 MAF-70 film case d60 85 8 1.05 5 A-12 film case d30 70 22 0.50 6 35mm film case d36 52 32 1.10 7 Compressor unit (BKB-3) KBO. 1565.000-01 350 d200 - 1 22.30 8 Central Exchange Module XA3.031.104 250.5 275.5 158.5 1 9.10 9 l 1M617-2 (IJeM0 ) I 1M617-1 unit (LIrBYC-5) XA3.030.073 588 256 261 1 25.00 10 CKK-I 1 cassette _)10934-090-0 225 215 42 1 1.80 11 Fan unit BP-5 2AF-7838-1000-02 130 240 170 1 2.15 12 "Platan-N" 3fo_5 equipment 426 447 113 1 7.10 13 "Komplast" panel _o_4 77KC_-7912-200 400 250 40 I 2.05 14 HFJ-tA command processing unit 37K_).2111-0 285 232 377 1 10.65 15 (_;OK) Individual dosimeter I)IR-3M X'r2.805.602 42 40 11 1 0.05 16 (NASA 6) AMPEX-733 video cassette 295 180 55 1 1.35 17 Food container (empty) 17KC.7860.200-01 380 305 123 5 5.10 18 Cosmonaut Preference Kit 340 310 90 3 12.97 19 Latch 77KC_-5361-200 90 75 60 1 0.45 20 Rod part 77KC_-5361-120 200 90 70 1 0.95 21 Bolt 1 0.00 22 Air conditioning unit (13KB-3) 355FK.0070A89-101 615 625 382 1 6.80 23 _rotective cover Condensate removal pump (HOK) 5033B 190 130 82 5 5.30 24 Betacam SP video cassette BCT-30MA 175 115 31 14 4.00 25 HI-8 video cassette E5-90HMEX 110 75 20 8 0.70 26 Parts 1 2.20 27 KAB 6180 container (atmospheric 10360.6180.000 - d82 193 3 1.15" Scientific moisture condensate) hardware Y MASS 300.220 A
Remark: * - The mass of the KAB 6180 container has not been considered in the total mass of this table.
A - Total mass is based on the results of a weight check when transferring responsibility for cargo at KSC.
81 NASA 6 (David Wolf) returned individual equipment Table 4.22 Description Designation Dimensions Qty Total Mass Priority mill nlln nlnl ea. kg j__o [ELK (NASA 6) 115-9104-300 1060 i 550 400 1 35,00 Penguin-3 suit (NASA 6) KH-9030-400 330 200 170 3 9.00 Penguin-3 suit (Mir 24) KH-9030-400 330 200 170 4 11.80 l_raining Loads Harness (THK), THK-Y- l-1321.000 360 260 180 1 1.4 (NASA 6) MASS 57.2
Remark: NASA transferred all items after the flight.
82 Russian cargo delivered on STS-91 Table 4.23 Dimensions Unit Qty Total Priorit2_ Description Designation weight weight nun mm mm k8 T ea. k_ _2 Food container (with Russian food 17KC.7860.200-01 380 305 123 7.00 40 271.42 1 rations) Experimental food container (with 17KC.260IO 3200-0 380 305 123 7.00 3 19.76 2 Russian food rations) Portable pressurization unit (BHII) 1l_732.BI721-0AI01 368 750 362 48.00 I 43.60 3 (full) BHIJ pipe 17K.10292-520 d400 50 1.00 1 0.34 4 Set of EDV containers 355FK.0010A74-0 643 d334 d230 11.50 2 23.55 5 EDV cover assembly [email protected] d330 105 3.53 12 41.65 6 EDV adapter 11_615.8711-100AI5 140 60 d40.5 0.28 2 0.60 7 EDV fill indicator 11_615.8711-210A15-1 47 d19 - 0.014 2 0.034 8 Solid water container (KTO) A8-9060-500 453 d330 - 3.50 6 19.69 9 Soft trash bag (KBO) 11_615.8715-0A15-01 d290 100 0.85 20 16.70 10 '310) (310) F 16-M unit (gyrodyne) with fasteners 355FK.0020A76-0 1040 d635 - 125.00 1 125.44 11 (including ring) F 15M Unit 6AF.369.641 465 340 306 25.50 1 25.14 12 F16-5 Unit 6AF.369.835 571 300 200 21.50 2 41.90 13 Stora_;e Battery (800A) IdKiJDK.563534.007 465 278 530 76.00 2 152.15 14 Current converter (flTAB-1) EHFA.435.241.001-0 ITY 380 320 186 14.50 1 13.43 15 Personal Hygiene Aids (CYIF) KT4.160.603 225 120 140 1.05 14 14.70 16 Personal Hygiene Aids (C.qF-3) Kr4.160.603-01 225 120 140 0.90 35 31.50 17 Personal Hygiene Aids (CYIF-fl_) Xr4.160.603-06 220 120 140 0.45 10 4.50 18 Personal Hygiene Aids (C.rlF-fl_) XT4.160.603'07 220 120 145 0.45 5 2.25 19 Biomagnistat IOFI//I4.375523.002 400 d160 4.00 1 3.22 20 Heat insulated vacuum container BTX5.100.000 400 d170 2.50 1 2.30 21 (TBK) (BIOKONT-T) fI_j_O-BAB (NUCLEUS-BAS) Km4.160.667 200 100 70 2.50 l 2.13 22 PEKOMB-K (REKOMB-K) BTX4.100.000 150 100 100 0.50 2 1.32 23 "Biocorrosion" package 305 225 20 0.60 1 0.23 24 Diskette package (2 ea.,) of the 104 104 10 0.05 1 0.05 25 information system Box with 3.5" diskettes, (7 diskettes) 104 104 40 0.19 1 0.23 26 Soft bag (Cosmonaut Psychological 11_615.B11710-0A55 340 310 90 2.7 1 2.74 27 Support Package) Soft bag (Cosmonaut Family Packase ) 11_615.B11710-0A55 340 310 90 5.00 2 10.73 28 Food container (with STS-89 food 17KC.7860.200-01 380 305 123 7.00 5 29.62 29 rations) Solid waste container (KTO) _8-9060-500 453 d330 3.50 3 10.02 30 Personal Hygiene Aids (CJIF-3) from XT4.160.603-01 225 120 140 0.90 20 16.87 31 STS-86 Soft trash bag (KBO) from STS-89 [email protected] d290 100 0.85 10 8135 32 Y. MASS 209 )36.164 WATER transferred 41+49 12.5 553.4 CWC Oxygen 24.3 Nitrogen 65.7 Remark: T -Theoretical mass ofa unitofhardware. A - Total mass is based on the results of a weight check when transferring responsibility for cargo at KSC. Note: Cosmonaut V. Ryumin delivered the Minolta Electronic Camera Diskette to Mir (0.02 kg).
83 Russian cargo returned on STS-91 Table 4.24 Dimensions Unit i Qty Total Priority Description Designation weight weight mill _ mill kg ea. kg N_ Kentavr article (NASA 7) K39.00.000.00 375 255 90 1.10 1 1.10 1 F I6-M unit (gyrodyne) with fasteners 355FK.0020A76-0 1040 d635 125.00 1 121.00 2 K1-BKA-03 instruments with one PT- _IY2.000.031-03 696 460 390 69.50 1 71.65 3 BKA instrument 2_4-BKA instrument _o 5 _tY3.468.011 214.5 124 42 1.05 I 1.10 4 MOMC-2H power unit (13I-1) M62.087.328 395 344 290 15.00 1 15.65 5 Gas analyzer control unit (I_KI"A) 37FK.7881-0 515 273 220 8.50 1 9.55 6 Canon EOS 50E camera with 150 90 50 2.12 1 2.15 7 attachments Hasselblad camera with accessories (in 500 EL/M 350 270 250 6.00 1 4.15 8 a single package) 35 mm film case d36 52 0.04 4 0.125 9 Betacam SP video cassette BCT-30MA 175 115 31 0.31 11 3.19 10 3.5" diskette 95 95 3 0.02 4 0.10 11 AMPEX-733 video cassette 295 180 55 1.35 6 6.80 12 Cassette with 35 mm film for the d25 40 0.04 4 0.125 13 Minolta camera Package of cable samples 300 200 100 2.00 1 0.30 14 3I-IYl- 1 cartridge 10133.4029.000 300 309 342 16.0 1 14.20 15 I-IKO cartridge 5269.00.00 239 d128 2.40 1 1.65 16 Harmful contaminant filter (OBII) 6469.000 115 d394 8.00 1 10.80 17 cassette P- 16 dosimeter Em2.805.000 307 164 121 2.50 1 3.05 18 .5 Experimental food container (collapsed) 17KC.260IO 3200-0 380 305 16 1.00 3 2.15 19 Biomagnistat IOI"11//4.375523.00 400 d160 - 4.00 1 3.22 20 2 IHeat insulated vacuum container (TBK) 13TX5.100.000 400 d170 - 2.5 1 2.27 21 (BIOKONT-T) _Iiff_PO-13AB(NUCLEUS-BAS) Xm4.160.667 200 100 76 2.5 1 2.13 22 PEKOMB-K (REKOMB-K) BTX4.100.000 150 100 100 0.50 2 1.32 23 "Biocorrosion" package 305 225 20 0.60 1 0.14 24 Individual dosimeter I_-3M, (NASA 7) Xx2.805.602 42 40 11 0.05 1 0.025 25 Cosmonaut Preference Kit 230 200 100 3.00 2 9.30 26 11M617-1 unit (I2BYC-5) XA3.030.073 588 256 261 28.0 1 24.95 Acoustic guitar PCT PCOCP 83-72 940 340 110 1 1.69 Penguin-3 suit KH-9030-400 330 200 170 2 5.90 IKAB 6180 container (atmospheric 103(i0.6180.000 d82 193 0.50 3 1.15" Scientificl moisture condensate) hardware' MASS 319.785
Remark: - * The mass of the KAB 6180 container has not been included in the mass of this table.
84 NASA 7 (Andrew Thomas) returned individual equipment Table 4.25 Description Designation Dimensions Qty Total Mass Remark mm nun mm ea. kg IELK (NASA 7) 115-9104-300 1060 550 400 1 31.36 Penguin-3 suit (NASA 7) KH-9030-400 330 200 170 4 12.00 Sleeping bag CHM-2MH 170-9061-00 370 d260 - 1 3.32 (NASA 7). Athletic shoes (NASA 7) 340 140 100 1 1.00 Clothin_ HK -14 flight suit 2AF-9004-1000 1.14 Operator coveralls K41.00.000.00 3.64 Eatin[_ utensils (NASA 7) 0.23 E MASS 51.69
Remark: All items transferred by NASA after the flight.
85 • _ O'_ r'_ o_ _ oo
C'-]
= _D
t c_
OO
"o
O oO OO kO r_, i OO O0 OO .< b- _r2 .< Z
O
b-,
O
kO OO
o_
O oo
b- oo oo if3
o,.._
r'--
O_ r"- r'-- r'-- 06 OO
er_ r_ = • u"_ v-_
._
o,.._ _ m
(D (D o_ "< M 4.3 UniqueFeaturesofMir-Shuttle and Mir-NASA Orbiter Flights With Respect to Russian Cargo Accommodation
Under the above two programs the Orbiter was used to deliver various cargo in support of the joint flights. The layout of the Orbiter vehicles depended upon the primary objectives of the vehicle's flight to Mir. Therefore, the Mir-NASA Program utilized the SPACEHAB module and the Mir-Shuttle Program used the Spacelab module to deliver most of the cargo requiring pressurized stowage.
Both the SPACEHAB and the Spacelab modules were considered payloads (PL) rather than Shuttle components. Both were capable of carrying powered equipment connected to the onboard power supply and passive stowage kits. Russian equipment, with the exception of the Russian docking compartment, did not require power from the onboard power supply system. The SPACEHAB module was utilized in the Mir-NASA Program because it was more suitable for cargo accommodation. The pressurized SPACEHAB module housed most of the Russian cargo carried on the Orbiter.
The stowage areas in the crew compartment (mid-deck), airlock, docking compartment (Orbiter docking system, or ODS) designed for small articles or articles directly related to flight were utilized as authorized by NASA's Phase 1 Program Office.
Russian cargo received special attention in the course of Orbiter flight processing due to the fact that flights by the Shuttle to deliver cargo to the orbital facility were different from its typical flights. Russian cargo was divided into those that required hard-mounting and those that could be accommodated in stowage bags and lockers. In the process, late-load logistics were defined. Large items and hard-mounted hardware were installed aboard the Orbiter without the benefit of containers but rather to special attachment locations using interface adaptive hardware. Small items or kits were accommodated in standard stowage (lockers, flight bags of various sizes) available aboard the Shuttle.
A joint working group of U.S. and Russian experts was formed to manage the large variety of Russian and U.S. cargo and their accommodations on the Shuttle. The group also tracked U.S. hardware flown on Russian vehicles.
4.3.1 Mir-Shuttle Program
4.3.1.1 STS-71
During the STS-71 Shuttle flight, Russian cargo was accommodated in all the pressurized compartments suitable for hardware stowage, including the mid- deck (crew cabin), internal airlock, ODS, the Spacelab module located in the vehicle's payload bay.
87 StandardlockersandVolumeD underneaththecabinfloor wereusedasmid- deckaccommodation.Specialflight bagswereutilizedfor cargostowagein theinternalairlockandtheODS.
Spacelabcargoaccommodationconsistedof flight bagsattachedtotheceiling andstandardlockersinstalledin specialracks.A vertical module loading technique was available for the late delivery items which, although not used during this mission, was utilized during subsequent flights to load the SPACEHAB module at the launch pad.
NASA developed a Spacelab-based rigid support of a special design to accommodate the return of a storage battery (Unit 800A).
Mir-NASA Program
STS-74
STS-74 delivered the Russian docking module (DM) with the two solar arrays, which was accommodated in the Shuttle's payload bay. The DM was installed to the ODS with the help of the remote manipulator system.
The bulk of the logistics was accommodated in special bags on the floor of the pressurized DM.
Some of the cargo was located in the mid-deck where standard lockers, Volume D under the cabin floor, and a special tray attached to the cabin floor were used as accommodations.
Special flight bags were employed to hold cargo in the internal airlock and the ODS.
4.3.2.2 STS-76
The unique feature of the STS-76 flight was the pressurized SPACEHAB single module installed in the vehicle's payload bay. This was the vehicle's first Mir-NASA flight with this module. Conscientious work on the part of Spacehab, Inc., the SPACEHAB contractor, and RSC-E experts assured efficient accommodation and attachment of Russian logistics.
A hard-mount design using a double rack was specially developed to carry large heavy items (in excess of 100 kg), such as the gyrodyne (Unit F16M) and IELK, and was successfully utilized in every flight until the end of the Mir-NASA Program. This required the SPACEHAB contractor to modify the design of the double rack and RSC-E to manufacture an adapter (the gyrodyne fastening ring). A second double rack was modified to carry the IELK in a transfer bag, developed with the assistance of Russian specialists.
88 SpecialinterfaceadapterplatesweredevelopedbytheSPACEHAB contractortoaccommodatethreestoragebatteries(Unit800A)onthe SPACEHABaftbulkhead.
It isworthyof notethatasignificantportionof theRussiancargowas installedusingtheMVAK atthelaunchpad(800Aunits,IELK - individual equipmentandlinerkit, foodcontainers,etc.).In thepast,manyof these itemswerenotloadedatthelaunchpadbecauseof theirweight.All the procedures for installing Russian cargo at the launch pad were developed by the SPACEHAB contractor in conjunction with RSC-E. The resulting experience in the vertical loading of the SPACEHAB module was subsequently utilized in the course of processing for every Mir-NASA flight.
Small portions of the Russian logistics (7 delivery and 6 return items) were accommodated in the mid-deck using standard stowage.
4.3.2.3 STS-79
Originally, the plan was to launch STS-79 on August 1, 1996. However, since it was necessary to replace the solid rocket boosters, the mission was postponed until mid-September 1996.
The unique feature of this flight was the use of the SPACEHAB double module located in the payload bay of this Orbiter vehicle. This was the first Shuttle flight utilizing the SPACEHAB double module configuration. The increased internal envelope of the SPACEHAB module allowed accommodation of a larger amount of cargo, including Russian hardware. The double SPACEHAB configuration was utilized in all subsequent missions except STS-91.
NASA had not planned to accommodate any Russian cargo in the mid-deck during STS-79. However, because of SPACEHAB mass limitations, such accommodation was allowed (3 delivery and 5 return items). These items were stowed in mid-deck lockers.
Furthermore, in the course of preflight processing there appeared some items requiring urgent delivery to Mir (nitrogen purge unit, vacuum valve units, and additional Penguin-3 suits), which called for late delivery. The nitrogen purge unit was filled with nitrogen under pressure and installed into the SPACEHAB module immediately prior to its roUout from the SPACEHAB Payload Processing Facility (SPPF).
4.3.2.4 STS-81
For the STS-81 flight almost all the Russian logistics were stowed in the pressurized SPACEHAB double module. A small portion of the cargo (4 delivery and 2 return items) was accommodated in the mid-deck. It is worthy of note that, unlike STS-79, this flight had a new nominal cargo accommodation in SPACEHAB. This new stowage location was on the
89 module'srearsectionsub-floor.It enabledadditionalhard-mountedcargoto beaccommodatedandtransportedbytheOrbiter.It shouldbenotedthatthis flight usedEnergia-developedadapterslaunchedbytheOrbiterfor the purposeof hard-mountingreturninghardware(ALISequipment). 4.3.2.5 STS-84
In thiscase,theSPACEHABdoublemodulewasagaintheOrbiter'sprimary locationforcargo.Theuniquefeatureofthisflight'sstowagewastheuseof newattachmenthardwareonthecentersub-floorpanelandtheaftbulkhead in therearof themodule.Thus,theSPACEHABcontractormodifiedthe standardcanoetraydesignfor stowagebagstoahardattachmentdesignwith tie-downstrapsto accommodatetheElektron-Vliquidunit (134kg)while EnergiadevelopedspecialElektron-Vcapssuitablefor usewith thecanoe's straps.Theseactivitieswereperformedin aquicktimeframeandlatein the flightpreparationfinalstage.Furthermore,the800Aunitattachment locationsontheSPACEHAB'saft bulkheadweremodified.Thespecial designof theseaccommodationsallowedtheirusefor returncargo.
ThisflightreturnedmoreRussiancargothananyotherflight (600.74-kg). 4.3.2.6 STS-86
TheSPACEHABmodule'sloadingflexibilityallowingthestowageof large amountsof cargoatthelaunchpadassistedin deliveringthemostRussian hardwareyetaboardthisflight (1,948.27kg).
The design of SPACEHAB's forward and aft bulkheads was specially modified for rigid attachment of nine storage batteries (Units 800A).
The peculiarity of this flight's processing was the fact that a significant part of the Russian logistics was delivered to KSC less than a month prior to launch because of the real-time developments aboard the station related to collision of the Progress cargo vehicle and the Spektr module. This flight carried 17 items of repair hardware (approximately 170 kg) in support of Spektr repair and recovery. A part of this hardware was stowed in the SPACEHAB double module while another part was placed in the ODS stowage bag.
In addition, at L-4 days an agreement was reached to deliver a Mir onboard computer (Unit 11M617-1). This item was stowed across two battery top plates on the SPACEHAB aft bulkhead two days prior to launch.
4.3.2.7 STS-89
This flight's primary stowage location was the SPACEHAB double module. Like STS-84 and STS-86 this flight utilized stowage locations in the rear of
9O themoduleonthecenterandoutersubfloorpanels,theaft andtheforward bulkheadsandportandstarboardracks.Forexample,twoportableair pressurizationunits(APU)werelocatedontheoutersubfloorpanelswhile theBKV-3air conditioningunitwasstowedin thecanoeattachedtothe centersubfloorpanel.Theseitemsweresecuredwith straps.TheBKV-3was equippedwith aspecialEnergia-developedcoverfor protectionagainstthe effectof thestraps.The800Aunitswereinstalledin themodifiedstowage locationsontheaftbulkhead.Specialfastenersweredesignedfor the SPACEHABbatterytopplatestoholdsoftstowagebagswhichcontained solidwastecontainers.Thisfreedupadditionalvolumeusedto stowother hardware.A partof thecargo(e.g.,theSalyut-5centralcomputer)was locatedin thecrewcabinmid-deckin flightbags.
Forthefirsttime,hardwarewasremovedandreplacedwithotherhardware duringMVAK operations.Thefull,pressurizedAPUwasremovedfrom SPACEHAB'ssubfloorandreplacedbyBKV-3,whichisthelargest(615x 625x 855mm)andheaviest(82.35kg)itemevertohavebeeninstalledatthe launchpad. 4.3.2.8 STS-91
ThefinalMir-NASA Orbiter flight (STS-91) utilized a SPACEHAB single module for Russian logistics stowage. Inside the SPACEHAB module, Russian logistics were accommodated in double racks, on the forward and the aft bulkheads. In addition, some of the biotechnology experiment hardware (Biomagnistat, BIOKONT-T, YADRO-BAV, and REKOMB-K) was installed in the mid-deck several hours before launch due to shelf-life limitations.
4.3.3 Conclusion
In conclusion, it must be noted that throughout the Mir-Shuttle and the Mir-NASA Programs, each flight was used to develop and verify new stowage capabilities for Russian cargo, new attachment designs, to acquire experience in the vertical launch-pad loading of large and heavy equipment and cooperation between U.S. and Russian experts in the course of pre-flight Orbiter processing.
4.4 Principal Stages of Orbiter Processing for Carrying Russian Logistics
The implementation of the Mir-ShuttlelMir-NASA Programs has seen both U.S. and Russian experts working together in the processing of nine Orbiter vehicles (STS-71, -74, -76, -79, -81, -84, -86, -89, -91) delivering Russian logistics to the Mir station.
4.4.1 Joint Documents
The WG-0/RSC E/NASA/0005 joint requirements document ("Mission Schedules and Cargo Traffic Plan") was developed in support of Mir-ShuttlelMir-NASA Program implementation. This document showed the Mir station and Russian and U.S. vehicle flight schedules as defined in the Mir-ShuttlelMir-NASA Programs. In addition, the 0005 document contained Mir traffic data. The appendices to this
91 documentshowedintegratedflight schedulesandlistsof cargofor deliveryto and returnfromMir.
Furthermore, another requirements document was developed for the Mir-NASA Program (WG-0/RSC E/NASA/0006, Catalog of Functional Cargo Transported by the Orbiter under the Mir-NASA Program). The data in the document were for use by RSC-E and NASA when planning and executing Mir-NASA flights. The document described cargo items for transfer between the Shuttle and the Mir orbital facility as well as the relevant requisite documents. This document is an official joint agreement with regard to operations with these cargo items both on the ground and in-flight defining also the hardware required to carry Russian items including interfaces.
It also described the procedures and the equipment required to implement the transfer and the data to be exchanged by RSC-E and NASA to support assessments and decisions relative to these operations. In addition, this document contained data with regard to the environment in the Orbiter's pressurized volume including contingency environmental parameters.
As the data of the flight schedule and Shuttle cargo complement changed for each flight, both documents went through a number of planned updates (L-6 months, L- 3 months, L-1 month, preflight, and postflight versions).
As prescribed by the 0005 and 0006 requirements documents which list the cargo items to be transported to Mir by the Orbiter, flight-by-flight joint engineering documents were developed under the Mir-Shuttle/Mir-NASA Programs:
WG-3/RSC E/NASA/3411-1, Delivery and Return of Russian Payloads Aboard STS-71 ;
WG-3/RSC E/NASA/3413-2, Transportation of Russian Payloads Aboard STS-74;
ICD-SH/RL/M03 (M04-M09), SPACEHAB/Russian Logistics. Interface Control Document [ICD] (for STS-76, -79, -81, -84, -86, -89, -91).
These documents defined all the interfaces between the support structure of the Orbiter's pressurized volumes as well as the Spacelab/SPACEHAB modules and the Russian logistics transported in each of the Orbiter' s nine flights depending on the specific cargo stowage location. Furthermore, these documents defined the requirements and the responsibilities of the parties relative to ground operations and payload integration. These joint documents served as the primary reference for Russian logistics operations at the Space Station Processing Facility (SSPF), the SPPF, and when installing part of the cargo at the launch pad at KSC.
92 All thedocumentsweredevelopedandcoordinatedpriortoeachof thenineflights asperthePhase1managementplanforthejoint effortof RussianandU.S. experts.
Following each Shuttle flight, the working group supporting Russian logistics processing for flight prepared a joint technical report. The report reflected all the sequential processing stages and the results of the completed flight.
Preflight Operations
Delivery lead times for cargo and hardware items to be installed aboard the Orbiter under the Mir-NASA Program were based on the requirements below:
• RSC-E informod NASA 10 to 6 months prior to launch of any request to transport large and heavy cargo (exceeding 80 kg) requiring rigid attachment. • Large cargo items weighing in excess of 80 kg would be delivered to KSC at 6 to 4 months prior to Orbiter launch.
4.4.2.2 In the course of the Mir-NASA Program implementation, there were exceptions to the jointly agreed to requirements and constraints in the over 80 kg cargo category.
In the course of STS-84 processing, 1.5 months prior to launch, the program managers agreed to deliver hardware for the Elektron-V system to repair failed equipment. Considering the fact that one of the Elektron-V units was large (1,328 x 430 x 341 mm) and heavy (design mass of 117 kg) and was supposed to come as a late delivery, a decision was made to simulate its vertical SPACEHAB loading and installation. To support the implementation of this decision, RSC-E shipped a mock-up of the Elektron liquid unit to KSC.
RSC E, SPACEHAB/Boeing, and KSC experts simulated the unit's vertical loading, modified the framing and the caps, performed mechanical testing and agreed to the flight attachment setup.
The simulation served to verify the basic feasibility of MVAK loading of the flight unit into the Orbiter.
The Elektron-V flight article was delivered at L-1 month. The delivered weight with the end caps of 137.9 kg far exceeded the design mass. This caused the vertical loading of the flight unit to be impractical for reasons of lifting equipment maximum load constraint (up to 123 kg). The unit was installed with the SPACEHAB module horizontal, resulting in a delay to the SPACEHAB roUout from the SPPF for integration with the Orbiter at KSC.
93 In thecourseof STS-89processing,lessthan1monthpriorto launch,the programmanagersagreedtodeliveranairconditioningunit(BKV-3)to replacefailedequipmentaboardthestation. BKV-3wasdeliveredtwoweeksbeforetheShuttlelaunch.Themassof the unitwas82.35kg.
Spacehab,Inc.madeaBKVprotectivecoverandaBKV mockupavailable forsimulation.
BKV wasinstalledin thelocationof oneofthethreeportableAPUlocated in thecanoein themiddleof thesubfloorof SPACEHAB'srearsection.The operationtoreplacethepressurizedAPUwiththeBKV-3wasperformedat thelaunchpad5 daysbeforelaunchwiththeOrbitervertical.
Cargoesunder80kgaswellassoftandsmallarticles(clothing,smalltools andassemblies)weredeliveredtoKSCatL-3 monthstoL-1 month.
4.4.2.3 Inthecourseof theMir-NASA Program implementation there were exceptions to the jointly agreed to requirements and constraints in the under 80 kg cargo category.
Decisions with regard to cargo delivery by the Orbiter (with late shipment to KSC) were made by the Phase 1 program management under extraordinary circumstances created by the real-time developments aboard Mir or other reasons of importance to the Mir-ShuttlelMir-NASA Programs.
In the course of STS-71 processing, the following items were delivered less than a month prior to launch: sealing kits, cutting tool (EVA) and additional onboard station crew procedures (Mir- 19). All of the above items were stowed several days before launch.
In the course of STS-74 processing, RSC-E representatives delivered a set of adapters for U.S.-made CO2 absorbers at L-3 days. Additionally, the U.S. manufactured two kits of adapters of its own to ensure that the U.S. COz absorbers would be used aboard Mir when delivered by the Orbiter. The U.S. and Russian adapter kits were installed in the mid-deck immediately prior to launch.
In the course of STS-76 processing, the Analysis-3 kit with hose was delivered at L-2 weeks for urgent delivery to Mir to support atmospheric station monitoring following Priroda docking. These items were stowed in mid-deck lockers.
In the course of STS-79 processing, two vacuum valve units (BVK), nitrogen purge unit (BPA), and two Penguin-3 suits were delivered at L-2 weeks for
94 urgentdeliverytoMir. BVK were delivered to Mir to replace failed valves while BPA was designed to support nominal atmosphere aboard the station.
In the course of STS-84 processing, the IIIA294 transmitter was submitted less than a month prior to launch for urgent delivery to the station to replace failed equipment. At L-3 days environmental monitoring hardware was delivered (hardware kits for Elektron-V, Vozdukh, TCS) as well as medical kits.
In the course of STS-86 processing, 17 items of repair equipment (total mass approximately 170 kg) were delivered at L-2 weeks in support of Spektr repair and recovery operations. Simulations were run of repair hardware integration in SPACEHAB and ODS flight bags. Three items of a hardware five-item set were stowed in the ODS.
At L-3 days, the onboard computer (Device 1 IM617) and a VHS tape containing Spektr repair instructions were delivered for integration aboard the Orbiter.
In the course of STS-89 processing, a compressor unit (BKV) and a central exchange module (LI_O) were delivered at L-2 weeks for urgent delivery to the Mir station for failed equipment repair.
At L-5 days, an onboard computer (Device 1 IM617) was handed over to replenish the onboard store of spares.
In the course of STS-91 processing, biological experiment hardware was delivered several days prior to launch as well as a kit containing 3.5" diskettes for the computer system. All the hardware was installed in the Orbiter mid-deck.
Limited-life cargo (food and certain hygiene items) were delivered to KSC at L-1 month. At this time, Russian cargo was turned over to KSC personnel for integration. This did not include a time allowance for special operations in the course of the handover. The requirement for special operations, such as checkout, testing, or assembly dictated an earlier delivery date and was specified on a case-by-case basis.
4.4.2.4 Russian Hardware Requiring Special Processing Prior to Shuttle Integration (With the Exception of the Russian Docking Compartment Not Considered for the Purposes of This List):
= Unit F I6M (gyrodyne): required checkout, testing, and assembly to the fastening ring (adapter). (STS-76, -79, -81, -84, -86, -89, -91 processing)
• Units FI5M, F16-5: required checkout and testing. (STS-84, -86, -89, -91. During STS-86 processing, one Unit FI 6-5 failed to be certified for flight following testing)
95 • Watercontainers(EDVs):requiredassemblyof sixEDVhousingsintoa singlesettosavevolumeontheOrbiter.(STS-76,-79,-81,-84,-86,-89,-91 processing)
• Incubator 1M Control and Monitoring Module: required water servicing and leak check (STS-76 processing).
• Nitrogen purge unit: required checkout, testing, and nitrogen pressure charging (STS-79 processing).
• ALIS Adapter: required interface compatibility checkout to support ALIS hardware safe return (STS-81 processing).
• Elektron-V liquid unit: required checkout, installation of end caps, and SPACEHAB integration simulation (STS-84 processing).
• Portable APU: required checkout, testing, and air pressure charging (STS- 86, -89, -91; prior to STS-91 the APU was charged with nitrogen rather than air).
• Spektr repair equipment: required checkout, partial assembly, and installation simulation (STS-86 processing).
• Air conditioning unit (BKV-3): required checkout, installation of protective cover, and installation simulation (STS-89 processing).
• Compressor unit (BKV-3): required checkout (STS-89 processing).
• Biotechnology hardware (Biomagnistat, BIOKONT-T, YADRO-BAV, and REKOMB-K): required checkout, diagnostic testing (STS-91 processing).
The above items underwent ground processing based on special procedures. All the other equipment underwent such operations as are prescribed by the 0006 document as well as simulation of flight kits in the SPACEHAB module and the mid-deck.
The transport containers with RSC-E hardware for a specific Shuttle flight were delivered under a special customs clearance by a freight carrier acting for RSC-E. Following delivery into the U.S., the containers were brought to KSC, the Space Station Processing Facility (SSPF, or the SPPF). NASA provided storage and assembly space for the Russian cargo as specified in requirements listed in joint documents until such cargo was formally handed over (inspected) and integrated on the Orbiter. All the Russian cargo was stored in their transportation containers.
RSC-E deliveries included:
96 • a set of Russian logistics for a specific Orbiter launch;
• a set of auxiliary hardware for a specific Orbiter launch to attach the Russian logistics on the Shuttle;
• a set of ground support equipment designed for Russian cargo checkout, testing, and simulation;
• containers for Russian primary and auxiliary equipment carriage;
• containers for ground support equipment.
Ground hardware including handling tools, was delivered by RSC-E to KSC at the same time as the flight hardware.
NASA provided the following equipment:
• a set of ground support equipment designed for Russian cargo checkout, testing, and simulation;
• ground support equipment for Russian cargo integration and de-integration;
• support structure for Russian cargo in the Orbiter crew compartment;
• support structure for Russian cargo in the SPACEHAB and the Spacelab modules;
• Orbiter flight cargo stowage facilities (containers, stowage bags, etc.).
In the course of preflight processing, NASA photographed the hardware being handed over as well as the assembly of the U.S.-Russian interfaces. Copies of photographic data were made available to RSC-E.
NASA and RSC-E representatives performed visual inspection, measurement and weighing of cargo immediately after each separate portion of the cargo was removed from the transportation container. This verification served to confirm that the Russian cargo items had not been damaged in transit and are in compliance with the data listed in the joint working documents. Following visual inspection, NASA representatives filled out the transfer-of- responsibility form for the Russian cargo and took over the responsibility for each individual item of hardware.
The installation and stowage of Russian logistics aboard the Orbiter was performed by NASA experts based on the Shuttle schedule and the NASA documents respecting the integration and stowage of Russian logistics taking account of the requirements and constraints levied by RSC-E. SPACEHAB/Boeing personnel performed the installation and stowage of Russian cargo in the SPACEHAB module. NASA supplied all the fasteners,
97 gaskets,andattachmentandstowagetoolsrequiredtointegrateRussian logisticsontheOrbiter.NASAprovideddetaileddocumentationwithregard to RussiancargointegrationtoRSC-Erepresentativespriortothese operations.
Throughout the Mir-NASA Program, RSC-E representatives received maximum access to monitoring Russian cargo processing, transportation, and final Orbiter stowage operations.
4.4.3 Joint Shuttle-Mir Mission Operations
As prescribed by distribution of responsibility agreements, the U.S. side was responsible for the special handling devices and de-integration tools in support of the removal of the Russian logistics from their stowage locations on the Orbiter as well as for their transfer to the Mir interface. The Russian side was responsible for the special handling devices and de-integration tools in support of the removal of the Russian logistics from their stowage locations on Mir as well as for their transfer to the Orbiter interface.
Mir-NASA program management was responsible for the transfer of hardware shown in jointly agreed to lists. MCC-H and MCC-M supplied NASA Phase 1 management with data to develop the transfer plan, including all measures and documents with regard to the transfer of the hardware shown in jointly agreed-to lists. The U.S. side was responsible for the cargo and operations aboard the Shuttle vehicle. The Russian side was responsible for the cargo on operations aboard the Mir station. Shuttle astronauts and Mir cosmonauts performed cargo transfer.
The accessories and tools for in-flight Russian cargo operations aboard Mir (including nominal installation) were provided by RSC-E. NASA supplied fasteners as well as any tools required to secure Russian cargo aboard the Orbiter.
NASA developed mechanical interfaces between Russian cargo and auxiliary hardware and the Orbiter structure taking into account the RSC-E requirements and recommendations for every specific Shuttle flight to Mir. The mechanical interfaces were defined in joint working documents 3411, 3413, or ICD.
A specially trained cosmonaut was responsible for the operations and procedures related to the transfer of Russian cargo from the Mir station to the vicinity of the Shuttle/Mir interface. Similarly, a specially trained U.S. astronaut was responsible for all operations related to the movement of this cargo from the above vicinity into the Orbiter and its stowage. NASA developed procedures for the transfer of Russian cargo from the ShuttlelMir interface into the Shuttle. NASA also
98 developedproceduresforthestowageof theabovecargo.Similarly,RSC-E developedall theproceduresfor theremovalof theRussiancargofromtheMir station for transfer to the Orbiter.
The Orbiter crew recorded all cargo transferred to and from Mir in a log. This log contained information from the WG-0/RSC E/NASA/0005 joint document with regard to the cargo traffic plan. Also, data were available with respect to the location of the hardware to be transferred both on the Shuttle and Mir. One of the crew members made entries in the log showing the date and time of hardware transfer. At the end of each flight day, the Shuttle and Mir crews reported to the ground on work accomplished. Copies of the daily transfer log were sent to MCC- H and MCC-M. Transfer items were added to and updated as coordinated by the two Mission Control Centers.
An exchange of information on the preflight traffic planning and participation by working group membership in mission control operations proved a significant help to both the Mission Control Centers in monitoring and completing cargo transfer operations between the Mir station and the Orbiter vehicle during each joint flight.
4.4.4 Postflight Operations
Postflight operations related to Russian logistics were performed at KSC. If the Orbiter vehicle landed in another location (STS-76 landed in Califomia), Russian cargo remained aboard the Shuttle until its delivery to KSC.
NASA developed a procedure for the removal of Russian cargo from the Shuttle. RSC-E, in turn, developed special instructions and constraints to these operations. NASA was responsible for complying with these requirements. RSC-E informed NASA one month prior to Orbiter launch of those return items that needed to be de-integrated from the vehicle earlier than the time specified in the joint agreements.
NASA provided the ground-support equipment required at KSC to de-integrate Russian logistics from the Shuttle. RSC-E supplied handling devices, as needed, for the stowage of the cargo in question in transportation containers. In the course of handling, measures were taken to prevent falls, impacts, or other incidents leading to damage.
RSC-E provided transportation containers for the return of Russian cargo to Russia following flight completion. RSC-E took delivery of its hardware at KSC. The RSC-E carrier arranged for the transportation of Russian cargo to the airport of departure for Russia. NASA informed the RSC-E carrier of cargo readiness for transportation. Transportation containers designed to carry Russian return cargo with the auxiliary hardware were shipped to KSC in advance.
NASA was responsible for the removal of Russian cargo from the Orbiter following its landing taking into account the requirements and constraints
99 coordinatedwithRSC-E.NASAandRSC-Etookaninventoryof thereturn Russiancargoasrequiredbytheprocedurefortheofficialtransferof responsibilityfor thecargotoRSC-E.Anydiscrepanciesdiscoveredin thecourse of inventorytakingwererecorded.Any problems arising in connection with the inventory taken by NASA were resolved in conjunction with RSC-E and joint decisions were made prior to the transfer of responsibility.
The sequence of operations for the shipment of Russian cargo from KSC to RSC-E following a Shuttle landing is shown below.
1. NASA completed Shuttle off-loading and payload inventory based on the down cargo list.
Item 1 + 3 weeks
2. NASA and RSC-E prepared a transfer of responsibility document whereupon NASA transferred the payload to RSC-E representatives.
Item 1 + 2 days (Landing + 3 weeks + 2 days)
3. In the presence of NASA personnel, RSC-E packed all the payloads into containers using its own packaging material and NASA-provided material as required.
Item 2 + 4 days (Landing + 3 weeks + 2 days + 4 days)
4. RSC-E arranged for the insurance and air transportation of payload containers and supplied NASA with the information appropriate for the processing of customs documents.
5. Simultaneously with activities in Paragraph 3, NASA prepared paperwork for customs clearance.
6. NASA notified the RSC-E cartier responsible for the delivery of payload containers from KSC to the airport of departure that the cargo was ready to ship. The carrier delivered the transportation containers with payloads from KSC into customs, cleared cargo through customs, and delivered them to the airport for shipment to Russia (RSC-E).
Item 3 + 3 days (Landing + 3 weeks + 2 days + 4 days + 3 days)
Documentation required to carry Russian cargo to RSC-E was issued by NASA. NASA assured completion of all customs formalities in the U.S. RSA/RSC-E assured completion of all customs formalities in Russia.
100 4.5 Parties'PrimaryAccomplishmentsUnderMir-Shuttle/Mir-NASA Programs
1. The coordinated effort by the Joint Manifest Working Group under time critical conditions to the stowage of late items for delivery aboard the Orbiter.
2. A completely up-to-date set of engineering documents on cargo traffic (i.e. Document 0005, Document 0006, ICD).
3. The accommodation of large hardware items in the Shuttle mid-deck and SPACEHAB module: Elektron-V for STS-84 and Spektr repair hardware for STS-86, etc.
4. The expedited delivery of critical hardware to Mir.
5. Utilization of the U.S. cargo traffic database to generate joint documents.
6. The coordination and implementation of a very effective Orbiter stowage schedule for all limited-life Russian logistics.
7. The rapid (2 days) and efficient transfer of 4.5 tons of cargo to and from Mir using Mir and STS-86 crew.
8. The use by Mir of potable and technical water produced from the water generated by the Orbiter's power supply system.
9. The return of vehicle components (KURS, TORU, and Elektron-V) and gyrodynes by the Orbiter from Mir for reuse.
10. The accomplishment of the planned cargo traffic supply by Shuttle to Mir was achieved ahead of time (by the 8_hmission).
11. The delivery of the large DM by the Orbiter and its docking with the Mir station.
12. Successful transfer of the electronic database during flight allowing real-time manifest updates by the Russian side.
13. In the course of the transfer of responsibility for the Russian logistics, SPACEHAB/Boeing and Russian experts utilized an efficient method allowing rapid return of cargo to Russia and delivery of hardware for flight. Making operations space available to the customer at the SPPF furthered the success of this process.
14. The familiarization with Russian cargo items by U.S. experts and the familiarization of Russian experts with the SPACEHAB module and Shuttle mid-deck stowage capability assisted in successful cargo traffic planning.
101 15.Thecooperationonthepartof SPACEHABin developingandmodifyinginterface hardware(suchasmodificationstothecanoe,batteryadapterplates,etc.),especially immediatelypriorto launchensuredsuccessfulaccommodationof large,latemanifested items.
16.Thesuccessfuloperationsutilizingthemoduleverticalaccesskit (MVAK) to load late-manifestedRussianitems.
17.Fortimelydeliveryof Russiancargo,theSPACEHABProjectsGroupwasrequired to obtaindetailedknowledgeof thecargocustomsclearanceandinternational transportationregulations.
18.Tocomplywith Russiancargorequirements(e.g.,withregardtotheportableAPUs, regularcarriageofbiotechnologyhardwarefallingundertheheadingofhazardous cargo)PGOCandflight crewequipmentlabpersonnelworkedin closecontactwith the JointManifestandSchedulesWorkingGroup.
19.Theinformationcontainedin theRussianLogisticsCatalog(Document0006) allowedexpertsto perform expedited assessments of Russian logistics accommodation and served as basis for the development of requirements levied against the complement, the dimensions, mass and ground handling operations.
20. Continuity of the Joint Manifest Schedules and Working Group membership throughout the Mir-NASA Program (i. e. use of the same experts for all the flights) fostered a working relationship and a free exchange of information allowing close contact and a high degree of trust and cooperation among group members. It allowed for timely solution of seemingly insurmountable problems and excluded unproductive use of work time.
21. During STS-89, for the first time, replacement of large Russian cargo was performed in SPACEHAB at the launch pad (an APU was replaced with the BKV-3 air conditioner) with the BKV-3 mass of 82.35 kg, the heaviest ever.
102 STS-79 astronaut Tom Akers performs an inventory of items to be transferred to the Mir
103 Mission Control Center - Moscow
Mission Control Center - Houston
104 Section 5 - Joint Shuttle-Mir Operations
Authors:
Victor Dmitriyevich Blagov, Deputy Co-Chair, Flight Operations and Systems Integration Working Group (WG) (Operations) Oleg Nikolayevich Lebedev, Co-Chair, Mir Operations and Integration WG
Philip Engelauf, Co-Chair, Flight Operations and Systems Integration WG (Operations) Jeffery Cardenas, Co-Chair, Mir Operations and Integration WG
Working Group Members and Contributors:
Vladimir Alekseyevich Solovyev, Co-Chair, Flight Operations and Systems Integration WG
Robert Castle, Co-Chair, Flight Operations and Systems Integration WG (Operations) Rick Nygren, Former Co-Chair, Mir Operations and Integration WG (MOIWG) Charles Stegemoeller, Mir Operations and Integration Working Group Gary Kitmacher, Mir Operations and Integration Working Group Richard Meyer, Mir Operations and Integration Working Group Donald Schmalholz, Mir Operations and Integration Working Group Michael Hendrix, Mir Operations and Integration Working Group Karen Morrison, Mir Operations and Integration Working Group Gloria Salinas/Lockheed, Mir Operations and Integration Working Group Darren Lajaunie/Lockheed, Mir Operations and Integration Working Group Sharad Bhaskaran/Lockheed, Mir Operations and Integration Working Group Ronald Crawford/Lockheed, Mir Operations and Integration Working Group Debbie Babic/Lockheed, Mir Operations and Integration Working Group Kevin Upham/Lockheed, Mir Operations and Integration Working Group Brian Rhone/Lockheed, Mir Operations and Integration Working Group Lynn Pickett/Lockheed, Mir Operations and Integration Working Group
LudmiUa Nikolaevna, Mir Operations and Integration Working Group Raf Murtazin, Mir Operations and Integration Working Group Andrei Manzhelei, Mir Operations and Integration Working Group Ekrem Koneev, Mir Operations and Integration Working Group Skella Bugrova, Mir Operations and Integration Working Group
105 5.1 Mission Control and Real-Time Operations During Shuttle Docking Flights
5.1.1 Introduction
The Phase 1 Program included a total of 10 joint Shuttle-Mir missions. The first of these, STS-63, was designed only as a rendezvous demonstration mission, since the Shuttle carried no docking mechanism. This flight provided a validation of the rendezvous technique and MCC to MCC interactions that would be required on all subsequent missions. All nine remaining missions included successful dockings, transfers of cargo and consumables, exchanges of both U.S. and Russian Mir crews, and the performance of joint docked experiments.
The Shuttle and the Mir were originally developed independently, for fundamentally different purposes, and were not inherently compatible vehicles. Numerous dissimilarities required both engineering and operational solutions to facilitate joint operation of the docked vehicles. The processes developed to achieve these solutions, the procedures and techniques used to execute them, and the knowledge gained from nominal flight and unexpected events are all the primary basis for the development of joint operational principles for future programs such as the International Space Station (ISS).
5.1.2 Implementation of Joint Operations
The development of a joint operations process was divided into numerous functional areas or subgroups. Prior to each joint flight, each discipline's top-level agreements for the conduct of planned operations were documented in Joint Agreements, which were the source of the detailed operational plans and procedures for flight. A document control process for making changes to these documents was developed, so that both parties could review and agree to the proposed changes. Although this process was somewhat cumbersome and could be refined for future programs, the concept of using configuration-controlled documents is valid and contributed to the success of the joint program.
Real-time operations for the Shuttle-Mir missions were conducted with the agreement that neither vehicle and neither MCC was in charge of the joint operation. The MCC-M controlled and had authority for the Mir, and MCC-H was responsible for the Shuttle. Similarly, the Shuttle commander was responsible for the Shuttle and crew, and the Mir commander was likewise responsible for his vehicle and crew. This arrangement formed the basis of a need for mutual agreement on every aspect of joint operations. One of the primary tools for these agreements was the use of Joint Flight Rules. Developed before each mission, these written rules documented both planned operations as well as responses to off-nominal situations. The rules minimized the need for real-time decisions, and ensured that all impacts of each course of action had been reviewed and agreed by both
106 sidesforoperational adequacy.
Execution of the joint missions required coordination between two control centers thousands of miles away from each other, in different time zones, and with different native languages. Communications links, processes and procedures were developed to exchange information between the control teams, coordinate decisions, and accommodate changes of plan. In addition to development of these joint control center capabilities, groups of consultants were exchanged during the mission to facilitate technical discussions between the control centers, and to observe and learn how the other team performed their tasks.
The detailed planning and control of the joint missions was performed through joint consensus at the individual discipline level; for example, the orientation requirements were agreed to by the respective attitude experts, procedural issues were worked out by the individual procedure specialists, and so on. Addressing the issues at this level resulted in mutually acceptable recommendations to the Flight Directors and mission managers, and was a very efficient method of resolving technical issues.
5.1.3 Joint Operations Accomplishments
The planning and execution of these joint missions encompassed many significant accomplishments. There were numerous challenges resulting from the technical complexity of the task as well as the practical considerations of technical and language differences. Among the most significant are:
Docking of very dissimilar vehicles -- The operational techniques for final approach and docking of the Shuttle to the Mir orbital complex were developed and gradually improved over the duration of the program. The Mir complex continued to change throughout the program with the relocation and addition of modules and relocation of solar arrays. Issues of plume loads, contact loads, and vehicle dynamics required continual reassessment to account for these changes. During the early portion of the program the Shuttle technique was changed from approaching from the velocity vector ("V-bar approach") to approaching from below ("R-bar approach") in order to help reduce plume-loading concerns. Throughout the joint program the dockings were consistently within the required contact conditions.
Technical Operation of the Docked Complex -- Mutually compatible operation of the Shuttle-Mir complex required extensive work in the areas of attitude control, thermal and power management, and atmosphere maintenance. The primary strategy for attitude and atmosphere control was to allow a single vehicle to control, thus avoiding interactions between the two vehicles' systems. Refinement of the Shuttle digital autopilot control parameters and hardware additions to the Shuttle environmental control system were required to accomplish these changes. The technique of
107 replenishingtheMir atmosphere from excess Shuttle consumables was a byproduct of this work. Management of the attitude was complicated due to the conflicting requirements of the two vehicles. Management of the attitude was complicated due to the conflicting requirements of the two vehicles. Extensive efforts were necessary to balance power generation for Mir, Mir and Shuttle thermal considerations, communications antenna blockage, and attitude control propellant usage.
Mission Control Operations m One of the greatest challenges of the joint operations was the coordination of control between the two mission control centers. The development of strong working relationships between the two control teams required practice through simulations and the development of clear, unambiguous communications channels and methods. Special console positions (RIO and PRP) were created to assist with this interface function. Procedures were developed for information exchange between the control centers, specifying reporting points, and making decisions. In addition, the use of the Consultant Groups provided a capability for detailed face-to-face technical discussions, when required. All of this work was performed in different languages, requiring the use of interpreters. The successful accomplishment of the entire sequence of missions serves as testimony to the technical abilities of both sides, given the practical difficulties. The mutual trust and respect for technical ability developed through the joint meetings and pre-mission work were crucial to this working relationship.
5.1.4 Joint Operations Lessons Learned
Dual Language Procedures m Although each Shuttle crew had at least some familiarity with the Russian language, and the Russian crews knew some English, it was not possible within the scope of the Phase 1 Program to converge to a single-language operation. Yet in the interest of safety and effective operation, it was crucial that both sides have a clear understanding of all procedures and plans. As a result, a method was developed to present all detailed joint procedures in both languages. Identical steps in each language were printed on facing pages of checklists. Printing techniques were used to distinguish which steps were to be performed by each side. Because it was crucial that both MCCs fully understand the flight rules, they too were printed in both languages on facing pages. Crew timelines were presented in both English and Russian as well.
In the future, when more than two languages are involved, as with the ISS, convergence to a single language of operation would be preferable where the time is available to gain language proficiency for all parties. However, it is still crucial that some time-critical and safety-critical procedures be absolutely clear and easily understood in an emergency, so some minimal amount of multilanguage procedures may be required.
108 CrewOperations-- Theefficientutilizationof thecombinedShuttleand Mir crews required clear planning and coordination. Conduct of the transfer operations for cargo, performance of experiments during docked operations, handover time for the long-duration crew change, and routine operation of both vehicles' systems created complex demands on crew time and available volume. Over the length of the Program the planning technique evolved significantly, resulting in a mixture of tightly constrained crew events and loosely scheduled crew time to complete unconstrained activities. The daily exchange of information between the MCC teams allowed planners to monitor the completion of tasks. Time was scheduled for both crews to meet and review the daily plans in order to improve coordination between the two crews.
Sleep Cycle Management-- The Mir crews were accustomed to a standard- length 24-hour day on a repeating schedule, synchronized with Decreed Moscow Time (DMT). Shuttle crews, however, have a variable crew workday length in order to adjust the crew wakeup times to support launch and entry schedules. Due to orbital mechanics effects, the sleep/awake periods for the two crews rarely coincide. However, efficient crew worktime requires that some minimum joint workday must be achieved and compromises were required from both crews in order to align the workdays. Through the Phase 1 experience it was determined that the minimum joint workday for the crews should be at least 8 hours of joint worktime in order to accomplish the transfer of the full cargo and perform the other assigned tasks. This required shifting the sleep period of the station and Shuttle crews each by as much as 4 hours.
5.1.5 Applications to ISS
While many of the operational techniques and specific procedures developed in the course of the Shuttle-Mir program were specific to the Mir-Shuttle configuration, many general principles can be applied to future joint operations such as ISS.
Joint Control Team Structure m For Phase 2, there will be both U.S. and Russian control teams for the ISS vehicle. Unlike the Shuttle-Mir program structure, the ISS will be operated as a single combined vehicle, with the Russians responsible for executing Russian segment operations and the U.S. responsible for the U.S. segment. However, the U.S. will maintain responsibility for the overall conduct of the ISS operation. Although one control center will have primary overall control responsibility at any given time, the principle of joint coordination at the discipline level and agreement between Flight Directors will still be the primary operational technique, an approach which was developed during Phase 1. The use of consultant groups will be continued in the ISS team structure.
109 Structureof JointDocumentation:
Theuseof documentedFlightRulesandMCCprocedureswill continueas standardoperationalpractice.Thesystemof agreeingto andintroducing changestojoint documents,developedduringPhase1missions,maybe fully appliedtotheISS.
AcceptanceofJointDecisions:
TheinteractionoftheMCC'sandtheirFlightDirectorsduringnominal flight andduringemergencysituationswasadjustedandassuredthesuccess of the9missions.Theexchangeofflight documentationandreal-time proceduresformakingdecisionsincluding:oraldiscussionsof the problems,questionsviafax,andFlightDirectorbriefingstoprovidethe partnerwithexhaustivedataconcerningtheproblemsthatarisewill apply, in general,totheISS.
JointPlanning:
Jointplanningandagreeingonthejoint plansduringPhase1wasalso refinedandin generalmaybeusedfor theISS.It wouldbeusefulto expandtheuseof digitalcommunicationlinksandequipmentforreal-time exchangeof planvariationstoacceleratetheirconcurrence.
Theuseof thepartner'sflightandgroundsegments:
Thepartner'sflight segmentduringPhase1wasusedfairly widely (exchangeof atmosphere,vectorstates,step-by-stepattitudecontrol,and theuseof thepartner'sgroundstationsandcommunicationslinks). It followsthatthispracticewill becontinuedontheISSandfurtheradvanced in thedirectionof increasingthesetypesof services.
And, finally, in the area of engineering accomplishments, the most important accomplishment of Phase 1 would be the friendly, creative atmosphere that developed among the specialists of our countries during the Phase 1 joint operations.
5.2 Operations During the Long-Duration Missions
5.2.1 Executive Summary of the Joint Mir Operations and Integration Working Group (MOIWG/WG-6)
The Joint Mir Operations and Integration Working Group (MOlWG/WG- 6), was established in the Spring of I995 as a part of the Phase 1 Program, and was responsible for the implementation of the joint NASAJMir Research Program on board the Shuttle and Mir-Orbiting Station (OS). Given this, the Joint MOIWG was tasked with the responsibility of
110 developing,defining,andexecutingtheprocessesof integration,mission preparation,andoperationofjoint researchontheShuttleandMir-OS. Through the use of the jointly agreed upon Integrated Payload Requirements Documents (IPRDs), research program requirements were baselined and implemented through various joint working group documents and protocols. This implementation included, but was not limited to, flight crew and ground controller training, integration of payload and medical hardware, operation preparation and execution, as well as real-time mission support for the flight crew on-orbit. On the U.S. side, the MOIWG functions were divided into five functional groups: Analytical Integration, Mission Management, Operations, Training, and Integration Integrated Product Teams (IPTs). Each of these areas interfaced directly with the payload disciplines and other Phase 1 Program Working Groups to further define requirements and develop an implementation plan to execute the program requirements. The MOIWG also interfaced with multiple Russian organizations such as the Institute of Biomedical Problems (IBMP), RSC- Energia (RSC-E), TsNIMASH, and the Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Center (GCTC) to complete these joint activities.
The accomplishments from the Phase 1 Program included not only the scientific return, but also the knowledge gained on how to plan for and conduct long-term operations aboard a space station. The past histories of both the U.S. and Russia in their respective programs -- Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Skylab, and Space Shuttle; Vostok, Voskhod, Soyuz, Salyut, and Mir-- brought different cultures with respect to planning and operations for spaceflight activities to the Phase 1 Program. By working together, the two sides learned to employ the best practices of each program to come to terms with the constant flow of technical, operational, and political issues that are part of the dynamic nature of a permanently manned space station environment.
The following sections briefly describe the structure, processes, joint accomplishments, and recommendations from each of the components of the MOIWG.
5.2.2 Analytical Integration Team (A1T)
5.2.2.1 Overview
The MOIWG was responsible for ensuring payload test and integration, preparation of required test and integration documentation, flight crew training and supporting documentation, actual integration of payload systems on board, execution of experiments and investigation in real time, and processing and distributing pre- and postflight data as required.
The MOIWG AIT served as the primary coordinating interface for payload requirements, development, delivery, schedule tracking, and issue resolution for the MOIWG. It served as the primary
111 responsibleMOIWGentityfor managementandcoordinationof payloadimplementationacrosstheIPTs,theNASA/MirWorking Groups,andotherNASAandRussianorganizations.The relationshipbetweenthejoint workinggroupsfor thepurposesof theimplementationof theresearchprogramwasgovernedby US/R-001.
5.2.2.2 StructureandProcesses
NASAwasresponsiblefor managementof theMOIWGusinga programmaticstructureacrossalltheIncrementswithinthefive majorareas:AIT, MissionManagement,Operations,Training,and Integration.Theuseofconsistentprocessesandsystemsandthe implementationof criticallessonslearnedfrompreviousmissions werekeytothesuccessof theMOIWG.Theprimesupportteam for theMOIWGwasalsoorganizedalongthesefunctionallines, anddedicatedincrementteamsfollowedeachmissionfrom requirementsdefinitionanddevelopmentthroughpostflight analysisandreporting.
Theprimarydocumentdescribingthescopeof workfor eachflight incrementwastheIPRD,asdevelopedbytheMissionScience WorkingGroup(MSWG/WG-4).
TheMOIWGworkedmostcloselywiththeMSWG,andthetwo groupsconductedquarterlymeetingsandreviewsjointly with their Russiancounterparts,whoservedasRussianinterfacesto WG-4 andWG-6.Duetothedynamicnatureof aspacestation environment,thesejoint meetingswereinvaluablesincethey providedtheopportunityfordirectcontactbetweentheU.S.and Russiansciencecommunitiesaswellasthepersonneltaskedwith implementingrequirements.In addition,criticalissueswere broughtforwardtotheprogramthroughweeklyNASAPhase1 ProgrammeetingsandteleconsandthroughperiodicPhase1Team 0 meetings.
5.2.2.3 JointAccomplishments
Giventhescopeof theU.S.ResearchProgram,Russianexperts werenotinvolvedin establishingexperimentobjectives,the analysesof experimentresults,ortheevaluationof experiments, exceptwithregardstotheassessmentof Mir-OS parameters, or in those cases where Russian investigators were directly involved as Co-Investigators.
112 Duringtheprogramdevelopmentandimplementationstages,both sidesworkedtogetherin thespiritof mutualunderstandingwithout resortingto undueformality,therebypromotingoverallactivity success.
A continuallyimprovedunderstandingof thelaunchandreturn capabilitiesandprocessingschedulesofeachside'svehicles allowedtheprogramtosupplyorreturncriticalitemsbasedon eventsthatoccurredontheMir-OS.
This understanding enabled each side to reevaluate and to replan the scientific program based on the dynamic nature of a space station environment.
5.2.2.4 Joint Lessons Learned/Future Applications
Establishment of working forums to address all issues associated with integration and operation of payload systems on partner elements, especially in the situations of differing module and element designs and accommodations.
Establishment of working forums with decision-making authority and responsibility to implement and execute positions and solutions.
5.2.3 Mission Management IPT
5.2.3.1 Overview
The MOIWG Mission Management IPT was assigned the task of managing the NASA/Mir mid-deck science and transfer activities. Some of the primary activities included training the crew members on the STS (Space Transportation System) mid-deck science in- flight operations and/or transfers, assessing ground and flight safety hazards, replenishing consumables, supplying new hardware, returning samples and experiment hardware, providing pre- and postflight ground operations, and leading the destow process at the landing site.
5.2.3.2 Structure
Each of the Payload Element Developers (PEDs) reported to the MOIWG Mission Managers regarding mid-deck payloads under their responsibility, and concentrated on the transportation of the science experiments to/from the Mir-OS utilizing the STS.
The Mission Management function entailed many roles and responsibilities ranging from maintaining a manifest of science payloads, real-time operations during the missions and coordinating the postflight activities after landing (destow and ground
113 operations).Inaddition,theMOIWGMissionManagerservedas theMO1WGrepresentativeto thePhase1IPTin aneffortto maintainstrongcommunications.
In addition,theMissionManagementTeamworkedcloselywith theSpacehabTeamto integrateflighthardwaremanifestedin the Spacehabmodule. 5.2.3.3 Processes
NewinputsorchangesfromthePEDs(in-flightoperationsand/or hardwarechanges)werereviewedbytheMOIWGConfiguration ControlBoard(CCB)andapprovedmanifestchangeswere submittedtothePhase1ProgramRequirementsControlBoard (PRCB).TheMissionManagementteamworkedwithinthe MOIWGandwith theMSWGtoidentifythehardwarethatwould berequiredto supporttheselectedexperiments.Thefinalmanifest andsubsequentchangeswerethenusedbytheMOIWGMission Managerto generatetheappropriatedocumentation.
TheMid-deckPayloadRequirementsDocument(MPRD),JSC- 27898,definedthePEDs'requirementsfor mid-deckscienceand technologypayloadelements.All STSphasesof theground integrationandde-integration,crewtraining,andflight andground operationswereincludedin thisdocument.
In addition,thesafetyteamdevelopedtheintegratedflight and groundsafetypackagesforthemid-deckpayloadsandcompiledthe MaterialSafetyDataSheets(MSDS),ProcessWasteQuestionnaire (PWQ),andHazardousMaterialSummaryTable(HMST)inputs.
TheMissionManagementIPTcontrolledthesciencehardware ascent/descentmanifestusingthePhase1RequirementsDocument (P1RD)andprovidedinputstoShuttle documentation. Mission Management repeatedly updated and cross-checked the real-time manifest against the official list of hardware items in the IPRD, the Mir manifest document (US/R-004), and the Phase 1 Requirements Document in order to maintain hardware configuration control. Updates generated from MOIWG CCB Directives were reflected in the PI RD and in Shuttle documentation. Timeline issues were primary considerations in development of the Shuttle manifest as well. Ensuring that the timeline matched the late changes in science requirements was an important Mission Management Office (MMO) responsibility.
114 5.2.3.4 JointAccomplishments
Duringthecourseof the Phase 1 Program, MOIWG Mission Management developed plans and procedures, including the following:
I. Mid-deck Science Familiarization - A mid-deck science familiarization was presented to the assigned flight crew and Mission Operations Directorate (MOD) flight controllers. This provided the crew a general overview of the mid-deck payloads, any payload constraints, cold stowage (requirements, units flying, contents, general activities involved), training schedule and training activities.
2. Cold Stowage Plan - Due to a well-established plan, carefully executed operations and thorough crew-training, frozen and refrigerated samples were transferred between the Shuttle and the Mir on each of the Shuttle/Mir flights without any loss of samples.
3. Destow Plan/Ground Operations Plan - A destow process was established that allowed for receipt, inventory and distribution of all Phase 1 hardware in a timely and systematic manner. This provided Phase 1 with a record of what was returned and accountability for that hardware.
4. MMO Manifest - The MMO manifest provided the required detail for MMO to integrate the ascent and descent hardware as well as to provide inputs to the P1RD.
5.2.3.5 Joint Lessons Learned
The following lessons were learned by the Mission Management IPT during their involvement in the ShuttlelMir missions, and would be applicable for ISS.
1. Establish a streamlined configuration control system for processing late changes. Set up a process that brings together key personnel from all required elements to evaluate and disposition all proposed changes subsequent to a freeze point at L-2 months.
2. Formalize preflight coordination between the Shuttle Mission Management, Program Office, MOD, PEDs and Mir Long-Duration Integration and Operations IPT members to specifically discuss transfer and operational issues.
3. Hardware drawing names, label names, and part numbers should be included on hardware lists. Common names should be avoided in any official documentation. Developing a separate drawing for hardware labels may reduce drawing changes if the crew has label name modifications. Revision of the JSC Drawing Control
115 Manualtospecifytheproperproceduresforhandlingthevarious nomenclatureissueswouldhelp. Inclusionof partnumbersalong withnamesin proceduresandotherdocumentationcaneliminate potentialconfusion.
4. Usethedocumentationplanasamodelfor futuregrounddestow operations.Hardwarewouldbedeliveredtoacentrallocationfor dispositioningandinventorycontrol.Therequirementswouldbe documentedin oneuniversallyrecognizeddestowdocument. Altematively,requirethecrewtopackallearlydestowandnominal destowitemsin separatebags(requiresmorespaceandcrew coordinationon-orbit).Thedestowplanestablishedisagood templateforfutureprogramsto buildon.
5. Somededicatedfacilitywith adequateprocessingandlaboratory spaceneedstobeidentifiedorconstructedatDrydenFlight ResearchCenterfor ISSuse.Thepotentiallossof long-duration sciencewouldfarexceedthecostof anadequatefacility.
6. Setasideanareaonboardstationfor stowageof common-use suppliessuchasziplocbags,Velcro,pens,andbatteries.At a specifiedtimepriortothenextShuttlelaunch,haveacrewmember inventorythesuppliesonhand.Ontheground,haveacatalogof corepre-approvedsuppliesthat theFlightEquipmentProcessing Contractmaintainstoreplenishthosesupplies.Removetheseitems fromthestandardmanifestingprocess.Underthepresentsystem,it takesalmostasmuchmanpowertomanifestaziplocbagasit does tomanifestapayload.
7. Provideanelectronicstill camera(ESC)tophotographall poweredhardwareafterinstallationorfor anyotheractivitiesthat requiredetailedconfigurationknowledgebygroundspecialists involvedwiththecrewin inspections,troubleshooting,orvisual scienceobservations.
5.2.4 ResearchProgramTrainingIPT
5.2.4.1 ExecutiveSummary
Crewtrainingfor theNASA Mir Program was an essential component of the success of the research program. Close coordination with the Crew Exchange and Training Working Group (WG-5) was required of the effective planning and implementation of the payload training program. The quality of the crew training was dependent on the constraints of crew schedules and manifests, launch dates, trainer and hardware availability, supporting
116 operationaldocumentation,levelof procedurematurity,and programmaticchanges.Theplanningandimplementationof crew trainingfor NASA/Mirrequiredcarefulanalysisof training requirements,takingintoconsiderationcrewbackgroundand previoustraining,aswellasscienceandoperationalrequirements. Thiswascomplicatedby the use of different launch vehicles for astronauts and cosmonauts. Due to limited crew time, particularly in the U.S., efficient and optimal training was essential. Eliminating redundant requirements and streamlining training session content and methods provided the most efficient training possible. In addition, the IPT coordinated training programs to provide certified ground controllers to operate the Spaceflight Control Center- Kaliningrad (TsUP) and Payload Operations Support Area (POSA).
5.2.4.2 Structure and Processes
The structure of the Training IPT was determined by the requirement for a core group of U.S. and Russian specialists to support payload training across the breadth of the program. This group worked closely in coordinating the necessary support from experiment investigators and developers in the execution of flight crew and ground controller training. With this in mind, U.S. Training Igr personnel were stationed both at the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) and in Russia at GCTC. Moreover, this group was responsible for the completion of ground controller training, both in the U.S. and Russia.
Analysis and definition of payload training requirements was based on a thorough review and assessment of science and operations requirements as defined in the IPRD. While the 100 series documentation and the IPRDs contained preliminary training requirements, it was the responsibility of the Training IPT to develop and define training concepts, guides, and jointly agreed- upon plans to ensure the successful completion of the NASA Mir Research Program. Through joint working group and U.S.-based training sessions and discussions, the Training IPT established jointly agreed-upon training concepts, principles and increment- specific training plans. Changes and modifications to the increment level training requirements were under the jurisdiction of the MOIWG CCB, and implementation was coordinated through joint MO1WG meetings and protocols.
In executing payload training, two U.S.-based training sessions were identified during the mission preparation phase of each increment. This served to complement continuous crew training ongoing at GCTC, based on the availability of crew training hardware of required fidelity. Indeed, training hardware destined for Russia underwent acceptance testing, requiring the presence of GCTC specialists to familiarize themselves with training units,
117 verifytrainingandflight hardwarefidelity,andexperiment procedures.Training lesson plans for each session were developed, and session evaluation logs were compiled to assess the effectiveness of each session, and as a method of continuous process improvement. Sessions involved U.S. science experts, RSC-E experiment curators, GCTC crew instructors, and crew procedure developers. Flight crew training was held on both an individual and group basis, supporting prime and backup flight crew requirements, as well as requirements for operators and subjects. While in Russia, weekly payload training sessions were held in compliance with the jointly agreed-upon increment training plan. At GCTC, available integrated Mir and module simulators, including specialized hardware stands, were used for theoretical and practical crew training. Moreover, all EVA training for external payloads was performed at GCTC. Medical discipline science crew training not only utilized the joint resources established at GCTC, but also required close coordination with IBMP specialists. Through the early identification of refresher and proficiency training, and the tools required to support this, such as Computer Based Training and Field Deployable Trainers, both on the ground and on orbit, a high degree of proficiency was achieved prior to execution on orbit.
To take advantage of PED and hardware efficiencies, the Ground Controller Training Program was conducted in parallel with the U.S.-based crew training sessions. Supplemental training was provided at JSC.
Crew readiness for the science program implementation was determined based on the results of test training sessions.
5.2.4.3 Joint Accomplishments
The Spektr incident and late crew changes proved that the developed training processes were flexible, yet structured enough to hold up under changing programmatic conditions.
Meeting the goal of efficient, effective training required close coordination with Russian counterparts and U.S. training personnel in Russia to maintain continuity and consistency of training plans for U.S. and Russian sessions across increments. Negotiations often resulted in specialization of cosmonaut crew members, procedures reviews, consolidated requirements, and revision of planned training hours.
118 Coordinationof training schedules with hardware and procedure development schedules proved to be critical to the success of training. In later increments, improved working relationships, streamlined processes, and reflown experiments made such coordination possible.
Streamlined processes also allowed for the effective accomplishment of Ground Controller training in conjunction with crew training, and for the development of various innovative training methods and materials, such as computer-based training for on-orbit use.
The development of NASA/Mir payload training processes allowed for the successful training coordination of an entire program across several increments, and even on an international basis.
Indeed, continuous process improvement led to a streamlining and improvement of the negotiation process, and the ultimate synchronization of the procedure development process with the training schedule. Development of upgraded training and laboratory facilities at GCTC in support of program research disciplines.
5.2.4.4 Joint Lessons Learned/Future Applications
The experience of long-term spaceflight has demonstrated the need for active participation by the crew in the research and experimentation aspects of scientific investigations. This is achieved through the accumulation by the crew of the scientific aspects of the phenomenon under study and the basic principles behind the science hardware, its design and functionality.
The criticality of outfitting of trainers and mockups cannot be understated. It essential to support integrated payload training, on both a system and element basis. The certification of training units in ground utilization needs to be clearly defined, being sure to address safety and hardware fidelity to flight units.
In order to continuously improve crew training for the science experiment and research program execution, the training process must be updated on a continuous basis based on experiment results from previous and ongoing missions. This will require trainers to be updated with the latest experiment results and reports.
Development of operations documentation in support of crew training is critical, and integrated schedules must be developed which allow for this close coordination.
119 5.2.5 OperationsIPT
5.2.5.1 ExecutiveSummary
TheMOIWGOperationsIPTwastaskedwithproviding operationalevaluationsandassessmentsof payloadrequirements, defininganddevelopingmissionpreparationactivitiesand products,providingreal-timemissionexecutionin theU.S.and Russia,anddevelopingpostflightassessmentsandreports. 5.2.5.2 StructureandProcesses
In satisfyingtheserequirements,theOperationsIPTwasstructured to supportincrement-basedteamsaswellasprovidetheoperational productsrequiredforeachandeverymission.Thus,thereexisteda coregroupof operationsspecialistswhoprovideddataand communicationssupport,systemsengineering,procedure development,flightplanningandoperationalassessmentsand requirements.Also, the Operations IPT was tasked with providing Mir systems insight in support of the overall NASA Mir Program, and in preparation for ISS. In its implementation, the Operations IPT provided support teams of rotating personnel for the two Mission Control Centers that jointly managed the real-time missions. Close coordination with the MSWG operations support was required to ensure implementation of NASAJMir Research Program requirements. The POSA, located in the Mission Control Center (MCC-H) at JSC, served as the U.S. operations integration facility for NASAJMir mission operations, and the Spaceflight Control Center (TsUP), located in Moscow, served as the interface to the Mir Flight Control Team and the U.S. long-duration crew member.
The mission operations processes were based on the Russian long- duration system for the development of nominal flight plans, research and experiment plans, daily flight plans, procedures development and implementation, including real-time updates, data and communications sessions, and telemetry data processing and distribution.
In implementing these tasks,'the Operations IPT worked through periodic Phase 1 Program meetings, joint MOIWG meetings and standalone flight planning and mission product discussions and teleconferences. Moreover, due to the operational nature of the roles and responsibilities, frequent and routine interface with STS mission operations personnel and the MOIWG Mission Management IPT was required.
120 5.2.5.3 JointAccomplishments
In theimplementationof thesetasks,theOperationsIPTinterfaced directlyandcontinuouslywithRussiancounterpartsduringthe courseof theprogramin theseareas,developingaworking relationshipthatdirectlyledto theoperationalsuccessof each increment.
Developmentof aprocessfor trackingtheorderlypackagingand returnof thescientificdataproductsfromlong-durationmissions.
Theestablishmentof aPhoto/VideoCoordinationGrouptoprovide acompletesetof photo/videohardwareandconsumablesfor all payloadswasbeneficialtotheprogram.Byconsolidatingthe photo/videostowageeffort,allfilm wasreturned,usedor not,to ensurenophoto/videodatawasstoredonfilm thathadbeen degradedbyexcessiveamountsof radiation.In addition,theexpert adviceonphoto/videoplanning,crewtraining,procedures,and productsensuredsuccesswhenconductingjoint activities.
Developmentof aprocessfor providingoperationalassessmentof payloadrequirementsandimplementationof theserequirementson theMir-OS through flight plans, procedures, and supporting operational documentation.
Evolution of a crew onboard procedure development and implementation process that served to support hardware integration schedules, crew training plans, and mission operations requirements.
Development of a mission nominal flight plan, based on launch schedules for manned and cargo vehicles, plans for science and engineering experiments, and with regards to resource and environmental constraints during the course of the mission. Further development of a two-week plan addressing daily work distribution and accommodating real-time changes in status of flight systems and vehicle resources. Final development of a Detailed Flight Plan, detailing daily operational program covering station systems, crew, and ground control facilities.
Development of a Daily Assignment Plan in English and Russian, to communicate to the flight crew current daily schedules and plans.
Development and establishment of a 6.5-hour crew workday for planned payload flight operations, excluding medical operations requirements.
121 Developmentof dailyresearchprogramreports,andweeklyMir system status reports.
Development of a plan of action for addressing anomalous conditions in payload hardware, given limited communication with on-orbit vehicle and differing work schedules and hours between the U.S. and Russia.
Development and implementation of a plan for utilization of U.S. ground communication sites in support of Mir on-orbit operations. These sites were used for air-to-ground (A/G) voice and telemetry operations.
Utilization of Russian A/G communications and telemetry in support of NASA Mir operations for medical, payload, and public affairs operations.
5.2.5.4 Joint Lessons Learned/Future Applications
Development of integrated, coordinated procedure development process, taking into account integration and training requirements and schedules.
Development of close working relationships between flight controllers from distant sites and cultures.
Establishment of routine process for review and unlink of messages to flight crew from differing control facilities.
Development of a flight planning process based on NASA-Mir lessons learned, utilizing design (pre-mission) and real-time (in- flight) planning. Need to make allowances for experiment setup, deactivation requirements, photo/video setup sessions, hardware anomalies, etc.
Enhanced A/G communications in support of on-orbit operations, including greater use of satellite communications, and expanded ground support networks.
5.2.6 Integration IPT
5.2.6.1 Executive Summary
The primary challenge for NASAIMir Integration was to provide quality payload management, processing, and delivery while adapting to changing technical and programmatic requirements and adjusting to cultural obstacles. The organization also designed,
122 certified,anddeliveredsharedhardwareequipmentfor useby multipleusersontheMir-OS. The planning and implementation of payload integration for NASAJMir required careful analysis of payload technical requirements, successful management of the acceptance testing (AT) process, effective coordination between payload providers and vehicle managers, and timely delivery and integration of payloads to the appropriate carrier elements.
The success of the payload integration task can be traced to the solid working relationships developed between integration personnel, payload developers and the Russian technical specialists. These groups were able to integrate different philosophical and historical approaches to design and testing so that the ultimate goal of launching and operating science payloads was always kept in focus. The processes developed to attain these goals were tested and refined as the program progressed, resulting in a well-defined set of processes that can be applied to future crewed spaceflight programs.
5.2.6.2 Structure and Processes
The programmatic and technical requirements imposed upon the NASA/Mir program were documented in the US/R-001, Plan for Managing the Implementation of the NASA/Mir Science Program, and the US/R-002, Hardware General Design Standards and Test Requirements. These documents contained the required processes, document blank books and the technical design requirements for hardware operating aboard the Mir Space Station. Each of these documents went through extensive joint review to develop a mutually agreed-upon set of requirements.
The MOIWG Integration IPT was responsible for ensuring that all payload hardware was certified for flight aboard the U.S. and/or Russian launch vehicles, and that all required documentation was complete, with the overall objective and goal of ensuring that no hazardous conditions existed for the crew or station. Integration documentation prepared for the NASA/Mir program consisted of the following jointly signed documents:
100 - Hardware Development Requirements 101 - Equipment Technical Description 103 - AT Procedures 104 - Incoming Inspection and Performance Checks 105 - Certification Test Procedures 106 - Certification Test Protocols and Reports 107 - Safety Report and Findings 109 - Technical Description of Test Hardware
123 In addition,DimensionalInstallationDrawings(DIDs),Electrical InterfaceDrawings(EIDs),ACTs(Russiancertificationstatements) and100passportswerealsorequired.Documentswereupdated basedoncertificationresults,andin thecourseof AT-1andAT-2. The span of this responsibility covered various Progress flights beginning with Progress 224 in August 1994, all NASAJMir Space Shuttle flights beginning with STS-71, Soyuz launches during the NASA/Mir program and the two Russian modules, Spektr and Priroda. This work proved to be very challenging since it required integrating requirements and processes from the U.S. and Russian programs. Each side utilized a similar structure with an Integration lead and technical specialists associated with each payload, including Russian curators and U.S. payload engineers.
Acceptance testing of hardware to verify compliance with the hardware development requirements, and to authorize manifesting aboard the Mir-OS was accomplished via Acceptance Testing procedures (ATs). This process included jointly reviewing all of the technical documentation and test data and physical inspections of the hardware, and documenting the results through jointly signed protocols. AT activities occurred at JSC (AT-l) and Moscow (AT- 2) as well as at the launch facilities at Kennedy Space Center and Baikanour (incoming inspections). Incoming inspections were performed with respect to hardware that was modified following AT, in cases where the final hardware processing for flight had a negative effect on its safety, or on hardware that had originally failed previous ATs. In the cases of defects or failures, a defect analysis protocol was compiled together with a plan of action including a partial rerun of the acceptance tests. AT activities for Progress, Soyuz and Shuttle flights primarily consisted of joint testing and documentation review with the physical integration of the hardware aboard the launch vehicle being the responsibility of the vehicle owner. The AT process continually improved over the NASA/Mir program and culminated in agreement on AT by Accompanying Documentation (AD) which allowed reflown hardware to be accepted without joint inspection or documentation review.
Previously flown hardware, that had not undergone modifications, was accepted for flight based on cover documents; the U.S. side performed acceptance testing internally, in conjunction with U.S. Quality Assurance requirements, and accompanying documentation was submitted for review and approval by the Russian side.
Safety approval for payloads flying aboard the Mir Space Station proved to be an evolving process. The Russian side had an extensive knowledge of long duration effects and hazards that had to be incorporated into the U.S. hardware design primarily in the
124 materialsarea.Safetywasoriginally worked independently by both the Joint Safety Assurance Working Group, WG-2, for vehicle safety and by WG-6 specialists for payload safety, each through a different set of documentation: Safety Analysis Reports (SARs) and Safety Certificates for WG-2 and the 107 document for WG-6. This dual path continued for the first 5 Increments, but these two documents and processes were combined for the last 2 flights in order to provide efficiency and to ensure consistent requirements review.
Stowage and hardware manifesting were managed through the US/R-004 document, Configuration and Status of U.S. Hardware on the Mir Station. This document contained information on the launch and return manifests for each Space Shuttle flight as well as on-orbit information for hardware aboard the Mir Space Station. This manifest was ultimately used to define the list of hardware requiring AT activities.
5.2.6.3 Joint Accomplishments
The evolution of the safety process from the independent SARs and 107 document into one document which was reviewed and approved by both WG-2 and WG-6 was representative of the teamwork and cooperation demonstrated during the Phase 1 Program. This change increased the efficiency of the safety process and the approval time for payloads aboard the Mir Space Station.
The design, delivery and integration of interface hardware as well as the integration of science payloads into the Spektr and Priroda modules was a monumental step in the Phase 1 program. These modules allowed the expansion of the science program and demonstrated the technical accomplishments that were performed during the program. The requirements definition, design to fabrication, and final testing processes that were developed for Phase 1 were examples of these accomplishments. All these achievements were a result of the intense technical and programmatic negotiations among multiple interagency and international partners that were driven by tight development and launch schedules.
The development of the AT by AD process represented an example of the relationships built between the U.S. and Russian sides. Initial AT activities were long and arduous processes requiring very detailed reviews of the hardware and documentation. The AT by AD process was
125 basedontheimprovementsmadeduringeachAT. Thisprocessled tocostsavingsbyreducingthedurationof AT activitiesandthe numberofpersonnelrequiredtosupportthem.
Thedevelopmentof shipping/logistics processes to and from Russia required a significant amount of coordination with Russian specialists, customs officials, JSC transportation and U.S. Embassy officials. It also required shipping/logistics personnel to maintain cognizance of all domestic and international export/import regulations, The successful implementation of these processes resulted in timely deliveries of flight and training hardware for tests, training and launch aboard Russian vehicles.
The establishment of a liaison office in Moscow to work as a direct interface between the U.S. and Russian sides improved the ability to transfer information and products. This office was extremely helpful in coordinating document approvals and hardware deliveries for Russian vehicle launches.
The integration of the Spektr and Priroda modules was a fully joint effort with both sides contributing to the design activities and physical integration of the modules. Electrical power, mechanical and data telemetry interfaces to the Russian systems were designed and developed.
5.2.6.4 Joint Lessons Learned/Future Applications
It is critical that integration documentation be prepared and delivered prior to delivery of the flight hardware for acceptance testing. Delays involved in the review of integration documentation unnecessarily prolong the AT process, and can be easily avoided by strict adherence to delivery schedules. This also applies to adherence to certification testing schedules and documentation.
It is essential that integration and operations personnel be involved in the early stages of hardware development and verification, in order to facilitate hardware acceptance and improve equipment operations and safety. The use of flight units to support certification testing can lead to hardware reliability issues, and thus should be minimized.
126 Cosmonaut Yuriy Gidzenko, astronaut Ken Cameron, cosmonaut Sergei Avdeyev, and astronaut William McArthur, shown working on board the Mir during STS-74
127 NASA 1 astronaut Norm Thagard
128 Section 6 - Safety Assurance
Authors:
Boris Ivanovich Sotnikov, Co-Chair, Joint Safety Assurance Working Group (WG) Gary W. Johnson, Co-Chair, Joint Safety Assurance WG
Working Group Members and Contributors:
Emanuel Naumovich Rodman, Joint Safety Assurance WG Nikolai Bryukhanov, Joint Safety Assurance WG Marina Sycheva, Joint Safety Assurance WG Alexander Didenko, Joint Safety Assurance WG Pavel Shashkin, Joint Safety Assurance WG Valery Kharitonov, Joint Safety Assurance WG Alexei Monakhov, Joint Safety Assurance WG Nina Ermakova, Joint Safety Assurance WG
Nancy L. Steisslinger, Deputy Co-Chair, Joint Safety Assurance WG Dennis Knutson, Joint Safety Assurance WG Mark Thiessen, Joint Safety Assurance WG Michael Taylor, Joint Safety Assurance WG Barbara Trust, Joint Safety Assurance WG Sharm Baker, Joint Safety Assurance WG Arthur M. Whitnah, Joint Safety Assurance WG Robert L. Peercy, Joint Safety Assurance WG James Seastrom, Joint Safety Assurance WG Cami Vongsouthy, Joint Safety Assurance WG Rick Hashimoto, Joint Safety Assurance WG Kip Mikula, Joint Safety Assurance WG Polly Stenger-Nguyen, Joint Safety Assurance WG Todd Jensen, Joint Safety Assurance WG Phong Nguyen, Joint Safety Assurance WG
129 6.1 Introduction
In 1994, an agreement between NASA and Russian Space Agency management (WG- O/RSC-E/NASA/O001) created a number of joint working groups for the real-time resolution of issues across all major disciplines. As one of these groups, the Joint Safety Assurance Working Group (JSAWG) was created whose objective was the evaluation of safety requirements for the Shuttle-Mir Program.
In accordance with the agreements made, this was an integrated, multifaceted program and was responsible for three primary objectives:
1 st objective: Flights of Russian cosmonauts on STS-60 and STS-63. During these flights, the Russian cosmonauts participated as crew members and took part in operations, research and experiments connected with meeting the objective of independent flight of the Shuttle.
2"d objective: Flight of an American astronaut on the Russian Soyuz TM vehicle; docking of the vehicle to the Mir station; and extended work of the American astronaut as a crew member on board Mir. During this flight the American astronaut participated in operations, research and experiments connected with fulfilling the flight objectives. The American astronaut was returned to earth on board STS-71 after completion of a joint flight under the Shuttle-Mir Program.
3_ objective: Joint flight of the STS-71 Shuttle and the Mir orbital station during which the Shuttle would dock with the station and Russian and U.S. cosmonauts would conduct joint research, experiments, and other operations. Each of these objectives had its own safety assurance features.
During the course of this program it became clear that expansion of the functions of the JSAWG was essential. The JSAWG became responsible for analysis of off- nominal situations on board the Mir and the Shuttle, for the safety review of cargo delivered to the station, for the safe functioning of scientific hardware, and for safe conduct of operations, etc.
The work of the JSAWG began with the development of the joint principles for ensuring safety, the development of the structure and content of safety documentation and the determination of scope and status for the JSAWG.
6.2 Documentation Structure
A joint basic document WG-2/NASA/RSC E/003/2000 was developed entitled "Joint Safety, Reliability, and Quality Assurance Policies for the Shuttle/Mir and NASA/Mir Programs" (document 3-1 in Figure 6. I).
130 Thisdocumentsetforth:
generalprovisionsfor evaluationandverificationof safetyduring implementationof theprograms; maintechnicalrequirementswhichhavetobefulfilledin orderto ensure missionsafety; structureofjoint documentationreleaseandexchangeof safetyprogram documentation.
Thestructureof all safetydocumentationdevelopedbytheJSAWGispresentedin Figure6.1.
Thesetof documentsdevelopedbytheJSAWGreflectedthejoint workandeffort ofbothsidesfor implementationof anintegratedandeffectivesafetyassurance programforMir and Shuttle.
6.3 Policies and Ground Rules
As a basis for confident resolution of the objectives presented with minimum accepted risk for both sides, the following were taken into account:
• Russian and U.S. experience and knowledge accumulated during space exploration; • Russian experience accumulated during the assurance of the safety of Salyut and Mir orbital stations, and Soyuz and Progress vehicles; • U.S. experience accumulated during the assurance of the safety of Space Shuttle, payloads, and Skylab missions; • analyses and reviews performed to assess the safety of systems, Space Shuttle and Mir interfaces, and operations, both nominal and off-nominal. These analyses and reviews will also ensure that documentation developed for these missions implement jointly and individually identified safety measures.
Also, as a basis of each side's responsibility, the following principles were assumed:
• During the joint program, both sides are governed by the basic desire and intent not to inflict damage to each other's crew or hardware; • The side installing hardware in the other side's spacecraft is responsible for impact of such hardware on safety of the mission within the scope of established requirements; • The Russian side is responsible for ensuring the flight safety of the U.S. astronaut on the Soyuz TM and the Mir (including the long-term presence of the U.S. astronauts aboard the Mir station). The criteria, process, and requirements for the continued presence of the U.S. astronauts on board the Mir are delineated in the International Space Station (ISS) Phase 1 - Program Directive; • The U.S. side is responsible for ensuring the flight safety of the Russian cosmonaut on the Shuttle;
131 • TheU.S.sideisresponsiblefor safetyduringShuttleproximityanddocking operationsuntiltheinitiationof themechanicalinterfaceof thetwovehiclesis achieved.Duringoperations,theRussiansideshallmaintainrequiredand agreed-uponconditionsfordocking. • Bothsidesareresponsibleforthesafetyof thejoint mission.However,the Russiansideisresponsibleforthesafetyof themixedcrewonMir, whereas the U.S. side is responsible for the safety of the mixed crew on Space Shuttle. In the event an off-nominal situation arose, the U.S. astronauts would return to the Shuttle, and the Russian cosmonauts would return to Mir. • The supplying side is responsible for the safety certification of the experiments, hardware and logistics which are to be transported or operated on U.S. and Russian spacecraft. If these experiments, hardware, or logistics have hazard potential, their safety must be certified by both sides.
The JSAWG developed the main provisions for safety assurance procedures which, in particular, provided for:
1. Safety assurance procedures, in accordance with which the safety requirements that were developed for earlier design phases of both space vehicles (Shuttle and Mir), were used to develop hardware as well as methods for quality control and testing. The effectiveness of safety procedures developed has been confirmed by extended use of both vehicles.
2. Joint analysis of joint flight operations and possible off-nominal situations and the development of real-time measures to control or to reduce the degree of risk.
3. The development by each side of off-nominal situations and hazardous factors (harmful effect to the habitable environment, hazardous radiation levels, external effects of space events, etc.) for the vehicle and for equipment located in the other side's vehicle. The hazard criteria were the effects of reviewed factors on crew safety, vehicle functionality, and completion of the main flight objectives.
4. Joint analysis of off-nominal situations for each side and development of a joint document that contains a listing of off-nominal situations that require joint actions to prevent them.
As the Program was expanded to multiple Shuttle/Mir missions, the JSAWG developed a separate set of documents for each mission, which addressed the above provisions, ending with the Joint Certificate of Flight Readiness (COFR).
Following management's decision about transferring the safety issues for payloads delivered to Mir and the safe functioning of scientific hardware on board Mir to the JSAWG, main provisions were developed for payload safety (including scientific hardware) and were documented in the "Safety Certification Agreement for Transport of Logistics and Hardware in a Pressurized Volume to and From the Mir" and the "Safety Certification Agreement for Experiment Hardware Operations On Board the Mir and Shuttle." Basic requirements were also developed for the
132 documentationforhardwaresafety(documentWG-2/RSC-E/NASA/2100), includingtheformatof thesafetycertificates,theircontent,andtherequirements for thehazardreports.
Basedonthesedocuments,theJSAWGperformedasafetyanalysisof all payloads includingscientifichardwaretransportedbothonRussianvehiclesandtheShuttle andalsoconductedasafetyanalysisfor operatingandstowingthesepayloadson Mir. Each side published summary documents containing a complete list of payload safety certificates.
Based on a Directive from Team Zero, the JSAWG conducted safety assessments for the U.S. astronauts' long-duration missions on Mir, taking into consideration activities on board the Mir Station.
All of the above came together as an effective, integrated safety program for Phase 1. From initial evaluation of safety requirements to the certification of flight readiness for each mission phase, safety was assured through this comprehensive safety program.
6.4 Top Safety Joint Accomplishments
6.4.1 Preface
A significant number of design changes and operational modifications were implemented as a result of joint participation between the Russian and American partners in the JSAWG. One of the Lessons Learned engendered most of these changes, i.e. "When multiple spacecraft are on orbit, new families of requirements are created and require assessment - each orbiting spacecraft imposes specific added requirements on the other." For ease of discussion, the accomplishments have been grouped into four categories: Hardware Changes, Integrated Analyses, Joint Flight Rule Changes and Safety Operational Contributions.
6.4.2 Hardware Changes
This category summarizes those risks that were identified in the joint safety process which resulted in modifications and/or changes to flight hardware. The majority of these changes were implemented on the American side. The primary focus was not to redesign existing hardware on either side but to make modifications as necessary to enhance the safety of ShuttlelMir operations.
1. Modification of Criticality 1 ODS Connectors Due to the existing design of Russian avionics boxes, the primary and redundant capabilities (i.e. main power buses, logic buses, etc.) are routed through the same Russian docking mechanism connector, which violates NSTS 8080-1, Standard 20, Redundant Electrical Circuits. The JSAWG recommended, and action was taken, to separate the primary and redundant capabilities on the American
133 connectorsideof Russian-Americanwireharnesses.Thisimplementation mitigatedpotentialsingle-pointfailures(i.e.inadvertentdemateof connectors) whichcouldcauserisktothecreworvehicleduringon-orbitphases.
2. Hatch Installed for STS-74, -76, -79, and -81 to Protect for Separation Redundancy The hazard analysis for STS-71 identified that loss of pressurization in the ODS/tunnel adapter could compromise the operations of the avionics associated with the ODS structural hook opening, as well as the ability to perform the 96- bolt contingency extravehicular activity (EVA). The JSAWG recommended the addition of a hatch between the internal airlock/tunnel adapter and the ODS external airlock to isolate the two compartments and maintain redundancy for Shuttle/Mir undocking. This change was implemented for STS-74 through STS- 81, thereby eliminating the risk of a single failure that could cause loss of both primary and contingency undocking capabilities.
3. Tool Developed to Manually Release Capture Latches During Safety evaluation of contingency operations for Shuttle/Mir, a new contingency was identified wherein the capture latches would not release and the guide ring could not be retracted. An internal EVA was evaluated in the Weightless Environment Training Facility (WETF) and it was determined that a special tool to release the capture latches was required. The tool was developed and has been flown on all missions since it became available.
4. Wrenches Added to Allow Disassembly of Hatches From Either Side To protect for the situation where the Mir hatch could not be opened after docking, a Russian hatch tool was flown on board the Shuttle and the crew was trained for Mir hatch opening. In light of the STS-80 hatch failure and the potential impact to the resupply of the Mir by the Shuttle, as well as the inability to perform an astronaut exchange, a joint off-nominal situation (ONS) assessment was performed to determine if appropriate tools and procedures are available for the U.S. astronaut on Mir to open the Orbiter hatch from the Mir side if necessary. It was determined that existing tools which had been delivered to Mir for a NASA payload were available to open the Orbiter hatch from the Mir side. It was verified that the U.S. astronaut on Mir was trained to open the hatch using existing procedures documented in the Johnson Space Center (JSC) EVA checklist.
5. Elimination of Single-Point Failures on Payload Equipment Safety discovered and required the elimination of single-point failures from the thermoelectric holding facility fans, the Thermoelectric Freezer (TEF), and the Shuttle Orbiter inflight food wanner.
6.4.3 Integrated Analyses
The Russian and American partners performed safety analyses to identify risk components associated with Shuttle-Mir operations. By the completion of the Program, a total of 27 hazard reports containing 100 hazard causes were
134 developedfor theShuttlewhile16hazardreportscovering57causeswere preparedfortheMir. One of the most significant benefits of these analyses was to identify aspects of the risk components which required the participation of both the Russian and American sides for resolution.
I. Identification/Resolution of Items for Joint Consideration Through the hazard analysis process performed by the U.S. and Russian specialists, a methodology was developed to identify and resolve safety items requiring joint consideration. This effort led to the identification of additional required integration analyses, as well as the de_nition of requirements for joint operational and contingency procedures. This process also included a methodology to perform a closed-loop joint verification of each hazard control.
2. Exceedance of Mated Shuttle/Mir Load Constraints During the evaluation of the Mir Structural Dynamics Experiment (MiSDE), an issue was identified that the Mir structural loads constraints would be exceeded in the event of a primary thruster failed "on" in a continuous firing mode. The JSAWG then identified the need for specific loads analysis of failed-on primary reaction control system (PRCS) jets. Analysis results indicated the potential for exceedance of interface load constraints within the response time capability for manual crew power-down of the failed jet. This led to the development of a flight rule defining priorities for mated attitude control and a requirement for PRCS reaction jet drivers to be powered off except when needed, and the definition of safety rationale for performance of the MiSDE.
3. Use of Iodine-Based Water on the Mir During the STS-71 review of Shuttle-Mir safety, the Russians expressed a concern about mixing the iodine-treated water with the silver-treated water on Mir. Procedures were developed by which the transferred water was filtered through an iodine removal cartridge.
4. Halon Fire Suppression Toxicity Issues During development of the STS-71 Shuttle/Mir integrated hazard analysis, a joint hazard was identified due to the potential release of halon into the mated spacecraft. Accidental discharge and leakage of halon is controlled by design and preflight checkout of the fire suppression system. Several analyses were performed concerning the release of halon into the habitable volume, including that of thermal decomposition of Halon 1301 and the effects on humans. Joint operational rules and procedures were developed concerning fire on board ShuttlelMir. It was determined that, in the event of a fire, hatches will be closed before executing firefighting procedures.
5. Bounce-Off and Other Collision-Related Issues Contingency situations such as bounce-off during docking- and collision- related issues such as clearance were documented and carried as open issues in the integrated hazard analysis until action was taken to eliminate those operational hazards or they were identified to management as risk issues. The JSAWG has worked closely with the dynamics personnel both at Boeing North American and NASA to evaluate the contingency situations and ensure that
135 operationalcontrolshavebeenimplementedtoreducethehazardpotentialand thatcrewtrainingfor thesecontingencysituationshasbeenaccomplished.In situationswheretherequirementsof theOrbiterspecificationhavenotbeenmet, waiveractionwassubmittedto managementfor approval.
6.4.4 JointFlightRules
1. Safe Jettison of Hardware The hazard analysis for the STS-74 docking module (DM) mission highlighted the need to establish operational constraints on hardware jettison while in the same orbit as Mir. This led to the development of an NSTS 18308_flight rule, X20.4.0-8, and although eliminated during the operational documentation update for a later mission cycle, the closed-loop verification of the JSAWG safety process drove the reinstatement of the rule as a hazard control for potential collision with jettisoned hardware.
2. Constraints on Viewing of Lasers The JSAWG hazard analysis which assessed crew injury during Shuttle/Mir missions identified a hazard concerning potential laser injury to the crew. Subsequent analysis determined that for trajectory control sensor (TCS) operations in the pulse mode, there is no potential for eye damage due to adequate distance between the TCS laser unit and the Mir crew view port. Failure modes for TCS continuous wave operations were also analyzed, and were considered to be precluded by design because they required three failures. The handheld lidar is not hazardous to the unaided eye when in use. Finally, the Mir crew identified operational constraints for use of optical hardware when the Shuttle is within 10 meters. All of the operational constraints are documented in NSTS 18308, X20.4.2-5.
6.4.5 Safety Operational Contributions
1. Established Criteria for Restow Versus Jettison of DM in the Event Rapid Sating is Required STS-74 was a delivery and assembly flight of the DM to the Mir. The DM was launched in the Shuttle payload bay, removed by the remote manipulator system (RMS), installed onto the Shuttle ODS, and finally docked to the Mir. The JSAWG developed time lines for rapid sating to determine at what point the DM could be restowed, or needed to be jettisoned in order to ensure a safe emergency return of the Shuttle. These data were presented to the Payload Safety Review Panel which concurred with and approved the JSAWG criteria for "DM Rapid Sating."
2. Established Risk of Bailout to Long-Duration Crew Members Prior to the STS-71 mission, several concerns were expressed regarding the ability of deconditioned crew members to egress the vehicle in a bailout situation and the likelihood of bailout with deconditioned crew on board. An analysis was conducted to determine the probability of a scenario where the Shuttle could not safely land but could be kept stable for a bailout. The study showed the
136 likelihoodtobe1in 60,000.Therecumbentseatingandthebailoutoptionswere consideredappropriatemeasuresduetotheremotelikelihoodof thesebeingused.
3. Identified Shuttle as a Critical Component of Mir Resupply System The basic elements of the MirlNASA Program included cosmonaut flights on board Shuttle, Shuttle docking with the Mir to exchange NASA astronauts, conduct of long-term scientific research and experiments aboard Mir, and development of coordinated operations between Russian and U.S. flight control systems while performing joint flights. In this regard, the Shuttle was initially not an integral part of the Mir resupply plan. However, as the Mir/NASA Program progressed, and Shuttle flights were interleaved with Soyuz and Progress resupply missions, Shuttle flight readiness and mission success became critical to crew and station safety.
4. Established Requirement for 96-Bolt EVA for Contingency Separation Early in the Shuttle-Mir Program and prior to the initial docking flight to Mir, hazard analysis of the ODS determined that the separation function for the vehicle stack was only single-fault tolerant by means of primary electromechanical and backup pyrotechnic mechanisms. The JSAWG investigated proposed options and was instrumental in initiating actions to develop a third means of separation by EVA removal of 96 bolts at the docking mechanism / docking base interface. This resulted in a two-fault tolerant system that complies with program requirements and mitigates the risk of failure to separate.
RSC E Joint NASA Documentation Documentation Documentation
3-1 3-2S RSC FJMir3-2M Safety Joint SR&QA Policies I NASNShuttle Safety Guidelines for R_atJimm_nt_ I ProvidedReauirementsby NASA [-"_ [ Shutte/Mir Missions Provided by RSC E J
1 r
3-3M Shuttle/Mir I Shuffle Compliance Mir Compliance with Safety Joint Safety _ with Safety Requirements Provisions Requirements
3-5M Documentation on Joint Mission _ Documentation on Mir Flight Readiness Shuffle Right 3-6 I I 3-5S Readiness -I Certificate Readiness
Figure 6.1: Joint Safety Assurance Working Group Documentation Structure
137 6.5 TopSafetyLessonsLearned Thesuccessof theShuttle-MirIntegrationSafetyProgramresultedfromthejoint effortsof boththeShuttleandMir specialists working together from the Program's inception through its completion. In this regard, the safety criteria and requirements for each program were identified and exchanged so that a single program safety operating policy could be jointly developed to fulfill the needs and concerns for each side. This policy outlined the process and structure (see Figure 6.1) which delineated that vehicle specialists independently perform analyses to identify hazardous conditions and necessary control measures. Subsequent joint review and evaluation of hazard control measures were performed to identify items requiring joint action. These included joint verification analyses and, in particular, analyses and definition of joint operational measures required for real-time response to in-flight off-nominal situations. Based upon these efforts, individual and joint conclusions were developed to support joint safety certification of flight readiness.
The Shuttle-Mir Safety Program has demonstrated that the early involvement of safety specialists for each program element, and the active exchange of information by all concerned parties throughout the program duration, is essential for the identification and resolution of integrated hazards between programs and program elements.
1. Station to Shuttle Integrated Safety Analyses Performed by Both Parties One of the significant analytical legacies for ISS application was the development and execution of a unique integrated hazard analysis process. A primary lesson learned during Phase 1 was the inability of a single side to identify, characterize and resolve those risks associated with multiple programs. This process involved participation by both Shuttle and Mir Station specialists to identify and resolve risks involved with the joint on-orbit operations. Individual programs initiated these analyses, and each party identified issues affecting their respective areas of responsibilities, as well as items requiring joint resolution. The team then worked together to identify the optimum solution(s) for the total program.
2. Operation and Transportation Safety Analysis of Payloads A simplified safety certification process was developed for experimental equipment and logistics hardware for operation or transportation. Safety Certificates were developed which were signed by the developer, the co-chairmen of the Joint Safety Assurance Working Group and the Phase 1 Program Managers. The user and the transporter utilized this process for safety certifications for safe hardware transfer, delivery, and operations. This process provided the flexibility to use either country's launch vehicles for delivery of logistics, scientific experiments, etc., to the station. A unified certificate database was created to allow certification of reflight cargoes.
3. Joint Safety Assurance Working Group The organizational cooperation plan (WG-0/NPO E/NASA 0001) signed by the program managers of NASA and RSC-E was developed at the beginning of joint activities of the Shuttle-Mir Program. This document officially established the joint
138 workinggroups,definedtheirtasksandresponsibilities,andappointedthechairmen. Consequently,aJSAWGwasestablishedto provideaday-to-dayforumfor assessing andresolvingrisksbetweenthetwoprograms.Theformal(4to5 timesperyear)face- to-facemeetings,augmentedby weeklyteleconferences,ensuredmaximum involvementbybothsides.An internationalpartnershipwasformedwhich successfullyworkedthroughdifferencesin culturalandengineeringprocesses.This cooperativeeffortinvolvedamethodicaljoint reviewandevaluationof eachstepof theintegrationprocess,frompolicydevelopmentthroughrequirementsdefinitionand analysisof eachaspectof thejoint mission.TheJSAWGenabledriskidentification andresolutionin anopenandcooperativeworkenvironmentthatengenderedjoint teamwork,whichresultedin atotalriskmanagementprocess.
4. Integrated Safety Documentation Structure The Phase 1 Safety Program was guided by six facets of documentation (see Figure 6.1 ) providing safety policy, requirements, analyses, assessments of hardware and Certificate of Flight Readiness for all parties. Provisions existed for the Phase 1 Joint Management Working Group's approval of each of the six components on a mission- by-mission basis. The major contribution of this structure was the visibility into requirements implementation for all program participants.
The ownership of the structure by both partners engendered a climate of cooperation for the safety participants instead of a climate of defense which commonly is characteristic of review boards and panels.
5. Preplanned Contingency Operations Developed for Each Mission by Both Parties Hazards and hazard causes that required the participation of both the U.S and Russian parties to mitigate or eliminate the risk were identified as items for joint consideration. These items were reviewed, in a joint forum, and specific real-time actions were defined and agreed to by both safety organizations. This resulted in the development of joint contingency procedures and requirements for flight rules and joint crew operations. These were a catalyst to drive operational measures to resolve or mitigate the ONS.
6. Creation of an Agreed-To Set of Critical Life Support Criteria The JSAWG identified life support requirements for continuation of the American astronaut on the Mir including atmospheric pressure and composition, thermal conditions, food and water reserves, oxygen generation capability, and quantity/functionality of fire extinguishers, breathing masks. This criteria tool provided a method for all parties to evaluate the safety of the station for continued operations.
7. Joint Policy for Out-of-Scope Activities As the Shuttle-Mir Program progressed, the necessity to define minimum safety parameters became evident for several issues including EVA, test of new hardware such as the Inspektor, and other "ad hoc" tests. The JSAWG created a Phase 1 Joint Management Working Group's (Team "0") Safety Directive to provide consistent safety policy and directions. This allowed the JSAWG to accommodate new issues and perform safety assessment of changes in the evolving program activities.
139 8. Real-Time Responses to Safety-Related In-Flight Anomalies The hazard analyses performed by the JSAWG considered safety-related failures that had been experienced during flight for both the Shuttle and Mir. During Phase 1, the cooperative effort by both parties to deal with the experienced ONS of fire, failures of computers, chemical exposure, depressurization, loss of power, etc., further served as a basis for formulating emergency scenarios for the ISS. Contingency approaches and joint procedures developed for Phase 1 of the ISS can be used to establish station-wide policy for specific emergencies on Phases 2 and 3 of the ISS.
9. Development of Readiness Requirements for Mir EVA Preparation for use of the Russian Orlan space suit by American astronauts and Russian cosmonauts resulted in NASA' s development of methodology to identify the station-unique risks and certify EVA readiness for joint missions with joint program hardware. The process developed for Phase 1 EVA facilitates transition to similar operation on the ISS.
10. Multiple Orbiting Vehicles Impose Specific Added Requirements on Each Other The concept of a system integration effort consisting of predefined requirements coupled with evaluation of only interfaces was recognized as being totally inadequate for on-orbit space operations. The value of this lesson is that the ISS requirements will vary on a mission-by-mission basis in three key areas; configuration (system interactions), interface, and operational protocols. Each of these areas is dynamic and changes on a mission-by-mission basis as well as within phases of a given mission. The provisions for identifying and considering items for joint consideration allowed the Shuttle/Mir Safety Program to maximize its value to the Phase 1 effort.
11. Safety Assurance of U.S. Astronaut During EVA NASA learned very early that the Russian JSAWG membership did not include an EVA expert. The Russian Safety experts, while focused on safety concerns, could not address detailed EVA issues. Similarly, the Russian EVA experts are not safety engineers, and while focused on EVA concerns, the Russian EVA experts could not expend the resources requested by the Americans for a detailed safety analysis. This lesson learned has been addressed in a new joint working group for ISS.
From the Phase 1 Program, the American Safety EVA Team learned about Russian EVA hardware, how to work with limited engineering data, and to work within the EVA community to resolve issues. (The Joint EVA Working Group was an extremely useful and effective resource, and continues to be for ISS issues.) Prior to the Phase 1 Program, the experience of the American Safety EVA Team dealt with short-term Shuttle-based EVAs. With Mir, the EVA Team learned the issues associated with operating a long-duration space station, to work with aging equipment, and to "making do" with a given situation to complete unexpected tasks. Additionally, Russian and American EVA experts from Phase 1 are also working ISS, therefore the knowledge and relationships gained early on in Phase 1 are already in use.
140 12. The Joint Safety Analyses of the STS-74 DM Assembly Mission. The STS-74 mission required transport of the DM to the Mir in the Shuttle. The integrated hazards to the Shuttle and Mir were evaluated as the DM was transformed from a Shuttle payload to an extension of the ODS. Later in the assembly process the DM became a permanent part of the Mir Station. Attendant joint activities of the DM called for an integrated assessment by both the Shuttle and Mir programs. Since an operation performed by one spacecraft might have an adverse effect on the other, both programs needed to analyze the DM as an entity, address systems interaction and operations and resolve the unique assembly issues in terms of the safety of their respective vehicles. This mission and the attendant analyses were the first of this kind, representing the initial Shuttle/Station assembly mission. Specific hazards identified and the joint process developed to resolve them provide lessons learned which are directly applicable to Shuttle assembly missions which are planned for Phase 2 of the ISS Program.
6.6 Conclusions
The unparalleled successful experience in implementing the Shuttle/Mir program (ISS, Phase 1) has taught us how to assure the safety of complex operations in space in spite of intergovernmental boundaries. These operations included delivery and return of astronauts and scientific hardware to and from orbit, conducting rendezvous, docking, maintenance and repair on orbit, joint EVAs in open space, delivering consumables and scientific hardware from Earth, and other preparatory steps necessary for the future assembly and operation of ISS. The main objective of the ISS Program Phase 1 was the safety and well-being of the astronauts and cosmonauts during the successful performance of joint American-Russian experiments by the partners and the integration of the laboratory and habitable modules with the Mir space station.
The jointly developed safety and risk management programs have been effective in identifying and controlling risks, which will provide valuable lessons for the ISS Phase 2 Program. These lessons include the joint preparation of Station to Shuttle integrated safety analysis by both parties, payload operation and transportation safety analysis, and a pro-active JSAWG with a unique integrated safety documentation structure.
In spite of the fact that not only the joint work, but also the independent work, of Russian and American managers who were responsible for safety and their working groups allowed them to effectively identify and control risks, the most valuable experience from the Phase 1 Program was received as a result of the joint safety assurance efforts while executing these two independent crewed spaceflight programs. This experience includes station operations by a joint American-Russian crew taking into consideration the recommendations developed by the safety group, performing integrated joint safety analyses, safety analysis of payload operation and transportation, the activities of the JSAWG with its uniquely developed documentation structure, and includes among other things, preplanned actions for off-nominal situations jointly developed for each mission.
141 NASA 6 astronaut David Wolf during an EVA training session
142 Section 7 - Crew Training
Authors:
Aleksandr Pavlovich Aleksandrov, Co-Chair, Crew Training and Exchange Working Group (WG) Yuri Petrovich Kargopolov, Co-Chair, Crew Training and Exchange WG
William C. Brown, Co-Chair, Crew Training and Exchange WG Tommy Capps, Crew Training and Exchange WG
Working Group Members and Contributors:
Yuri Nikolayevich Glaskov, Deputy Chief, GCTC Richard Fullerton, Co-Chair, Extravehicular Activity (EVA) WG Shannon Lucid, Astronaut Representative for the Crew Training and Exchange WG Jeffery Cardenas, Co-Chair, Mir Operations and Integration Working Group (MOIWG)
143 7.1 Overview of Crew Training
Working Group 5 - crew exchange and training - was a small group that consisted of two people from the Russian side (A. Alexandrov, Y. Kargopolov) and the American side (Don Puddy, through mid 1995, C. Brown, mid 1995-Present, and T. Capps).
The objectives of the group were to determine the duties and responsibilities of cosmonauts and astronauts when completing flights on the Shuttle and Soyuz vehicles and the Mir station, the content of crew training in Russian and in the U.S., and to developing training schedules and programs.
The group maintained a fairly standard work process. Periodic meetings were usually held alternating in Russia and in the U.S. Between meetings contact was maintained through the use of teleconferences and faxes.
To widen the operational interaction on joint flight training issues, a Johnson Space Center (JSC) office (NASA) was created at the Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Center (GCTC) where an American representative permanently worked.
This position, which was called the "Director of Operation, Russia" (DOR) was filled by a representative from the astronaut corps. He took part daily in resolving issues related to cosmonaut and astronaut training for joint flights and implemented the agreements and resolutions of WG-5.
The Crew Exchange and Training Working Group also defined the agreements for the placement of emblems on crew flight clothing. The number and type of personal articles permitted for crew members during flights on different vehicles, the content and schedule for postflight activities, and also any other issues on crew exchange and training or crew-related issues that did not enter the area of responsibility of other working groups. During their period of work, the group developed and managed the following documents:
Crew Exchange and Training Working Group Documents Table 7.1 5OOO Duties and responsibilities of the Mir-18 astronaut. 5001 Duties and responsibilities of cosmonauts on the Shuttle during flight STS-71. 5002 Duties and responsibilities of the STS-71 astronauts on the Mir. 5003 Mir-18/Shuttle science. 5004 Mir- 18 astronaut' s training plan. 5OO5 STS-71 cosmonauts' training plan for Shuttle systems. 5O06 STS-71 astronauts' training plan on Mir. 5007 Critical Shuttle terminology. 5008 Critical Mir terminology. 5010 Cosmonaut's science training plan under the STS-71 flight program. 5011 Topics of symbolic activity and crew personal topics during flight STS-71. 5012 Crew members' personal and service souvenirs of the Phase 1 joint space program.
144 Table 7.1 Cont. 5013 Topics of psychological support for the Mir/NASA crews of the Mir complex. Packages and personal items. 5025 Dictionary (English-Russian) of U.S./Russia space programs. 5026 Dictionary (Russian-English) of U.S./Russia space programs. 5030 Crew emergency evacuation system. 5031 Habitable compartments hardware. 5032 Shuttle EVA systems. 5034 Mir EVA systems. 5035 Mir construction and systems for Shuttle crew members. 5101 Duties and responsibilities of Mir station crew members on the Shuttle. 5102 Duties and responsibilities of Shuttle astronauts ontheMirstation. 5105 Mir station crew member trainin 8 plan for Shuttle systems (mated configuration). 5106 Shuttle crew member training plan for the Mir station (mated configuration). 5200 Duties and responsibilities of astronaut crew members of long-duration Mir missions. 5201 Astronauts' training program for extended flights on Mir. 5203 Cosmonaut duties and responsibilities on Shuttle STS-84 (December 1996). 5204 Training plan for cosmonaut completing flight on Shuttle STS-84 (December 1996). 5205 Cosmonaut duties and responsibilities on Shuttle STS-86 (May 1997). 5206 Training plan for cosmonaut completing flight on Shuttle STS-86 (May 1997). 5207 Cosmonaut duties and responsibilities on Shuttle STS-89 (September 1997). 5208 Training plan for cosmonaut completing flight on Shuttle STS-89 (September 1997). 5209 Cosmonaut duties and responsibilities on Shuttle STS-91 (January 1998). 5210 Training plan for cosmonaut for flight on Shuttle STS-91 (January 1998).
When necessary the working group made the appropriate changes and additions to these documents.
Working Group 6 was responsible for the content of the U.S. science training.
The work of Russian-American crews on board the Mir began with the Mir-18 mission that included the participation of astronaut-researcher Norman Thagard, the first NASA astronaut to carry out a long-duration flight for the Shuttle-Mir program. Norman Thagard was launched on the Soyuz TM transport vehicle on 14 March 1995 and worked on the station as an astronaut-researcher for 115 days. STS-71 transported the Mir 19 cosmonauts to Mir and returned the Mir 18 crew to the Earth during July 1995.
The docking of Shuttle STS-76 on 24 March 1996 was the beginning of the continuous presence and operation on the Mir station of NASA astronauts as part of the NASA-Mir program.
NASA astronaut Shannon Lucid, operating under the auspices of the NASA-Mir-2 program, was transported to the Mir station approximately one month after the Russian crew of Mir-21 began operation on the station. Subsequently, five more missions were executed (NASA-3, NASA-4, NASA-5, NASA-6, and NASA-7). During that time, for the execution of American-Russian transport operations seven Shuttle dockings were
145 performedwiththeMir. The program entailing the continuous presence of NASA astronauts on the Mir station was completed on 8 June 1998 after the undocking of the Mir station and Shuttle STS-91.
The unique nature of astronaut training for the NASA-Mir program consisted of astronaut shift rotations on board the Mir that were executed using the Shuttle while the crews of the primary missions were operating on it and the rotation schedule of these crews differed from that of the astronauts. Thus, each NASA astronaut had to operate as a member of several primary missions. With such a rotation system it was not always possible to ensure the training of astronauts as part of all of the crews with which they would be working on board the Mir. The system of astronaut rotation on the Mir is presented in table 7.2.
In all, over the period of operations for the Shuttle-Mir and NASA-Mir programs, 9 NASA astronauts were trained at the GCTC for the performance of long-duration spaceflight on the Mir station (7 of them executed spaceflights). Four astronauts underwent training in EVAs (3 of them performed EVA operations in flight).
Two training sessions each were performed at JSC and at the GCTC for the performance of the joint Russian-American science program using the primary and back-up crews of Mir-18, Mir-21, Mir-22, Mir-23, Mir-24, and Mir-25.
Within the framework of the NASA-Mir program 5 Russian cosmonauts (Krikalev, Titov, Kondakova, Sharipov, and Ryumin) underwent training at JSC for Shuttle flights as part of American crews, and executed space flights (twice for Titov). The corresponding Shuttle flights are STS-60 -63, -84, -86, -89, and -91.
Nine Shuttle crews (STS-71, -74, -76, -79, -81, -84, -86, -89, and -91) underwent a week of training in Russia for the Mir station for joint activity with Russian crews. The Russian primary and backup crews of Mir-20-25 underwent training at JSC for one week for the Shuttle and joint activity with STS crews (6 times in all).
Training of Russian-American Mir crews and Shuttle crews concerning Mir systems and Russian cosmonauts concerning Shuttle systems was carried out in accordance with the approved training programs and on the basis of the experience of training for joint flights for the Shuttle-Mir program. The total duration of the training of each of the astronauts was to have been 14 months. However, due to changes in the program and delays in the assignment of astronauts, this condition was not fulfilled for some of the American astronauts.
146 7.2 Trainingof Astronautsin Russia
NASAastronautsweretrainedattheGCTCtoperformspaceflightontheMir scientific research complex as flight engineers-2. This was done in two phases:
• as part of a group of astronauts; • as part of a crew.
Table 7.3 presents generalized data concerning the scopes and dates of NASA astronaut training with allowance for backup.
7.2.1 Training as Part of a Group (Stage 1)
Training as part of a group entailed:
• technical training for the Soyuz TM transport vehicle; • practical classes and training sessions on Soyuz TM simulators and stands; • technical training for the Mir orbital complex; • practical classes and training sessions on station and module simulators; • medical/biological training, including flights in "weightlessness," medical examination, and physical training; • survival training under extreme conditions; • independent training; • Russian language study.
The organization, scope, and content of training, and its technical and methodological support enabled the following tasks to be accomplished:
• acquisition of fundamental knowledge concerning the principles of design, layout, and operation of the onboard systems of the spacecraft comprising the Mir orbital complex; • development of fundamental skills for the performance of typical operations for the control and servicing of onboard systems; • learning of concepts, terms, and abbreviations used in Russian space technology (including the flight data files of the Mir complex); • learning of Russian language.
Data concerning the scope of astronaut group training are cited in table 7.4.
As a result of the successful performance of these tasks the main goal was achieved: The required level of professional astronaut training needed to continue training as part of a crew was provided.
In the postflight reports of the first astronauts who executed spaceflight in the NASA-Mir program, it was noted that during the process of the subsequent
147 cooperationof RussiaandtheU.S.in thefieldof mannedspaceflightunder theNASA-Mirprogram,theeffectivenessof thetrainingof American astronautsanditsresultscanbesignificantlyincreasedif thefollowing measuresareimplemented:
• It is advisable to update the Russian program of theoretical training (first of all, in the area of fundamental knowledge) with allowance for the level of professional training of the NASA astronauts and their experience in the execution of spaceflights; • Technical training needs to be started when the NASA astronauts attain a sufficient level of Russian language learning, especially for its everyday usage. A more intensive study of the Russian language and its technical applications should be continued during the process of technical training; • An optimal combination of theoretical knowledge and the independent work of NASA astronauts should be provided during the initial stage of training -- when the level of Russian language study is not high enough. The duration of the theoretical classes should not exceed four hours (it is advisable that the rest of the workday be planned for independent work by the astronauts, for consultations, and physical training). During this stage it is especially important to have all the methodological materials in two languages: Russian and English.
7.2.2 Training as Part of a Crew (Stage 2)
Training as part of a crew entailed:
• technical training for the Soyuz TM transport vehicle; • practical classes and training sessions on Soyuz TM simulators and system mockups; • technical training for the Mir orbital complex, practical classes and training sessions on station and module simulators; • medical/biological training; • training for the NASA-Mir scientific research program; • training for the EVA program; • preflight training as part of crew; • independent training; • Russian language study.
Data concerning the scope of astronaut training as part of a crew are cited in table 7.5.
Joint training with crew members made it possible for the astronauts to successfully perform training program tasks as part of a crew -- to develop skills at the necessary level to perform the following types of activity within the scope of functions conferred on a flight engineer-2:
148 • assurecrewsafety,includingtheexecutionof operationsfor emergencydescentontheSoyuzTM transportvehicle; • supportthereliableoperationoftheonboardsystemsandequipment of thecomplex; • performworkstationorganization; • exchangeinformationwiththeNASAconsultativegroupatMission ControlCenter(MCC)-Houston; • performresearchandexperiments; • performhouseholdproceduresandphysicalexercisesusingonboard facilities.
In theopinionof theRussiancrewmembersandAmericanastronautsthat workedundertheNASA-Mirprogram,duringthephaseof trainingaspart of Russian-Americancrews,greaterattentionneededtobegivento matters of thepsychologicalcompatibilityof crewmembers.Forthis,alonger trainingperiodshouldbecarriedoutfor eachcrewwith whichan astronautwill beworkingonboardtheMir. Joint training sessions for survival under extreme conditions would also contribute to this.
The backup system that was initially developed and approved by the sides stipulated the execution of a flight by an astronaut mainly as part of a crew with which he underwent backup training, which ensured a longer joint training of cosmonauts and astronauts. The cancellation of Scott Parazynski's training and the subsequent alteration of the astronaut team and the dates of their arrival at the GCTC did not allow the backup system to be fulfilled.
The results of the integrated examination training session determined that the main goal had been attained: the level of professional crew training proved sufficient for it to be cleared for spaceflight and for the performance of the science program on board the Mir.
149 Astronaut Rotation on the Mir Table 7.2 Mission/ Date work Date work Period of operation as part Total Total Astronaut began on completed of Russian-American crew duration of duration Mir on Mir operation on of EVA Mir NASA- 1 Soyuz _STS-71 3/14/95-7/7/95 Mir- 18 115 days no Norman TM-20 7/7/95 (Dezhurov, Strekalov) Thagard 3/16/95 NASA-2 _STS-76 _STS-79 3/24/96-8/2/96 Mir-21 188 days no Shannon 3/24/96 9/26/96 (Onufrienko, Usachev) Lucid 9/2/96-9/26/96 Mir-22 (Korzun, Kaleri) NASA-3 _STS-79 _STS-81 9/19/96-1/20/97, Mir-22 122 days no John Blaha 9/19/96 1/20/97 (Korzun, Kaleri) NASA-4 _STS-81 USTS-84 1/15/97-3/1/97 Mir-22 126 days 4 hours Jerry 1/15/97 5/21/97 (Korzun, Kaleri) 58 Linenger 3/2/97-5/21/97 Mir-23 minutes (Tsibliev, Lazutkin) NASA-5 _'STS-84 _STS-86 5/17/97-8/14/97 139 days 6 hours Michael 5/17/97 10/3/97 Mir-23 (Tsibliev, Lazutkin) Foale 8/14/97-10/3/97 (Solovyev, Vinosradov) NASA-6 _'STS-86 _[STS-89 9/30/97-1/29/98, Mir-24 122 days 6 hours David Wolf 9/30/97 1/29/98 (Solovyev, Vinogradov) 47 minutes NASA-7 _STS-89 _STS-91 1/24/98-2/19/98, Mir-24 135 days no Andrew 1/24/98 6/8/98 (Solovyev, Vinogradov) Thomas 2/19/98-6/8/98 Mir-25 (Musabayev, Budarin)
150 Scope and Dates of Training Table 7.3 Mission Dates of Training with Dates of Total hours of Total training Astronaut beginning/end Russian crew astronaut training in hours of (backup) of operation on (backups) training (in group, crew (as astronauts Mir group, as part primary, of crew) backup) NASA- 1 ]]'Soyuz 20 Mir- 18 3/1/94-10/7/94 883,845 1728 Norman Thagard 3/16/95 Dezhurov, 10/10/94- (Bonnie Dunbar) I_STS-71 7/7/95 Strekalov 2/21/95 ( 115 days) NASA-2 _'STS-76 Mir-21 1/3/95-6/24/95 795, 1127 1922 Shannon Lucid 3/24/96 Onufrienko, 6/26/95-2/26/96 (John Blaha) 1],STS-79 Usachev 9/25/96 (Tsibliev, Lazutkin) (188 days) NASA-3 _STS-79 Mir-22 2/23/96-7/1/96 795, 503 \ 959 2257 John Blaha 9/19/96 Korzun, Kaleri 5/29/95-7/19/96 (Jerry Linenger) _STS-81 (Manakov, (4/14months) 1/20/97 Vinogradov) (122 days) NASA-4 _STS- 81 Mir-23 9/23/96-12/6/96 765,605 \ 1054 2424 Jerry Linenger 1/15/97 Tsibliev, \ 11/29/95- (Michael Foale) 1_STS-84 Lazutkin 12/20/96 5/21/97 (Musabayev, (2.5 \ 13months) Budarin) ( 126 days) NASA-5 fiSTS-84 Mir-24 1113197-419/97 \ 899,408 \ 840 2147 Michael Foale 5/17/97 Solovyev, 4/3/96-4/30/97 (James Voss) USTS-86 Vinogradov (3 \ 14 months) 10/3/97 (Padalka, Avdeyev) (139 days) NASA-6 0STS-86 9/2/96-8/27/97 \ 1081, 614 1695 David Wolf 9/30/97 9/2/96- 8/12/97 (Wendy _STS-89 (12\ 11.5 Lawrence) 1/29/98 months) ( 122 days) NASA-7 _'STS-89 Mir-25 1/ 16/97-12/5/97 982, 553 1535 Andrew Thomas 1/21/98 Musabayev, \ 9/8/97-12/5/97 (James Voss) _STS-9 l Budarin (10.5 \ 3 months) 6/8/98 (Afanasyev, (135 days) Treshchev)
151 Irj _ I_ _ O0 t'_ [-
e_ C_
t_
0
e_ = o
0 _ ¢'-..I _1 '_ ¢'_ _ t _- t'_ ¢"-,I ¢'_ t_ I_ o_
0 e_
_J
[-
C_
i
[_ E-"
(",1 _ _i_ __z_ _z_ z _,z ._ i 0", t_
O _0 0
i C_
oo t- o_
QC
C_ Q_
0_ c_
o_
r-
t_" _r_
O _ q.( 0
0 i C_ o_
L.. _o 0,10
0", ,_ L. QO [.. ,,....
[" r_
r"- _
0_
0
i O0 ,.... _0
c_
0 ;> E o i _orl _
Iml
i
o_
_0
i
t q_
"_ _ "_ _ i q_
0 i
f_
_D "E i _ oo _ f_Q
i
_o
0 O _
t
[- _ o
.o
0 Z 7.3 Mir Station Systems and Soyuz TM Training
The goal of the technical training of astronauts was to provide the level of knowledge and primary skills for the operation of the onboard systems of the Soyuz TM transport vehicle and the Mir station necessary for the performance of training sessions on simulators within the limits of their functional duties.
During the technical training of astronauts for the NASA-Mir program, particular attention was given to the onboard systems that have a substantial impact on crew safety. These include the life support systems complex (KCO)K), the thermal mode control system (COTP), and the motion control system (CY_). Theoretical and practical courses were carried out for these as well as other onboard systems.
Special features of training for the life support systems complex (KCO)K) Theoretical and practical courses were performed concerning the control and servicing of the Mir life support systems complex (KCO)I() within the full scope of the functions of the flight engineer-2.
Special features of training for the thermal mode control system (COTP) Practical courses were performed to develop the astronauts' skills for the execution of vital operations:
• filling the COTP loops with gas and coolant; • replacing the coolant in the COTP loops; • separating the interior COTP loops; • finding and eliminating leaks in pipelines, etc.; • developing skills to prevent loss of condensate and for its collection; • developing skills for setting up ventilation of the complex and individual modules depending on the actual temperature/humidity conditions; • developing skills for the operation and servicing of the main condensate discharge lines: operation with BKB-3 (air conditioning unit); • operating with XCA BO TK; • operating with BOBa; • developing skills for monitoring and control of the COTP taking into consideration its actual state
Special features of training for the motion control system (CY,/I)
• performance of theoretical and practical courses to study identified off-nominal situations in connection with the extended operating time of individual CY_ units; • performance of practical courses at RSC Energia (RSC-E) control and test station for the servicing and repair of the CY_ to develop skills for replacing units and parts and switching electrical cables.
155 Special features of technical training for the Soyuz TM transport vehicle
The technical training of astronauts for the transport vehicle was performed taking into consideration their function as cosmonaut/researcher during the performance of operations for an ahead-of-schedule or emergency descent from orbit. Astronauts were given a general idea of the transport vehicle's onboard systems, the plan for the execution of descent from orbit, as well as practical skills for self-help using the KCO)K, conducting radio communications with MCC, evacuating the spacecraft after landing (splashdown), and survival.
7.4 Training in the Soyuz TM Integrated Simulator
Astronaut Norman Thagard was inserted into orbit on board the Soyuz TM transport vehicle. For this reason, practical courses and training sessions were carded out with him as part of the Mir- 18 crew for the performance of all the flight program phases within the scope of the functional duties of the cosmonaut/researcher.
Subsequently, NASA astronauts during the implementation of the NASA-Mir program were transported and returned to Earth on the Shuttle. For this reason, NASA astronauts underwent training for the transport vehicle flight program only for the execution of descent from orbit (including emergency descent) in the event of the emergency evacuation of the orbital station and were seated in the seat of the cosmonaut/researcher.
On the basis of these baseline data a typical training program was developed for NASA astronauts as crewmembers on the integrated simulator of the transport vehicle and for actions to take in off-nominal and emergency situations in order to perform the assigned tasks and assure flight safety.
The typical program provided for the fulfillment of the following requirements for the training of NASA astronauts for the Soyuz TM transport vehicle:
• An astronaut must be familiar with the transport vehicle design and layout and onboard systems; • An astronaut must know how to execute an emergency evacuation of the Mir station as part of the crew, the actions to take to prepare for emergency descent in the event of fire, depressurization, specific flight data files, and have the following practical skills: * open/close CA-BO hatch, check to see that it is airtight; * operate personal protective gear (Sokol space suit, etc.); * operate the following valves: _)HK-P_, 3IIK-I-ICA, PHB-2, 3B valve: (CA condensate - I_O condensate); * output commands from the right control panel (KCH). • An astronaut must know how to use the telephone communications system (to conduct radio communications), the water supply system, and the wastewater system.
156 Thetypicaltrainingprogramentailedthefollowing:
1. Programfortheperformanceof practicalcourseswith NASAastronautsonthe T_K-7CT(2)integratedsimulator. 2. Programforthetrainingof NASAastronautsaspartof acrewonthesimulatorfor theintegratedcontrolof thetransportvehicleduringdescentfromorbit,for actionsto takein off-nominalsituationsandfor flight safetyassuranceT)][K-7CT(2). 3. Programfor thestudyof flightdatafile sections,of theflight program,andtransport vehicleballistics.
Summary of the Typical Training Program: Table 7.6 Number of exercises/ Name of exercises number of hours Training for practical exercises with NASA astronauts 3 / 6 Practical exercises with NASA astronauts on integrated simulator 3112 Training for training sessions as part of crew for integrated control 5/10 of transport vehicle during descent from orbit Training sessions as part of crew for integrated control of transport 5/20 vehicle during descent from orbit Study of flight data files, flight program, and transport vehicle 10/20 ballistics (in class) TOTAL: 68 hours
The NASA astronauts' readiness is verified by a board during the performance of a test training session on the transport vehicle integrated simulator for the performance of a descent as part of a crew and during a test concerning the flight program and transport vehicle ballistics within the framework of the typical training program.
Upon completion of the NASA astronauts' training program concerning the Soyuz TM transport vehicle for the NASA-Mir program, the following conclusions can be made on the basis of its analysis:
• On the whole, the scope and content of the exercises enables a NASA astronaut to be trained to execute, if necessary, a descent from orbit as part of the crew on the Soyuz TM transport vehicle in the seat of the cosmonaut/researcher. • The replacement of Russian cosmonauts on the Mir station did not coincide with the replacement of NASA astronauts. Therefore, the American astronaut often flew with two different crews. But during training it was not always possible to conduct training sessions for descent with both one crew and with the other because their training times did not coincide. • The effective and qualitative training of NASA astronauts during the initial stage was hampered by the poor knowledge that some of them had of the Russian language.
The given experience of NASA astronaut training for the NASA-Mir program needs to be taken into consideration during subsequent training for ISS:
157 1. It ispossibletoprovideonlyminimumtrainingif thedutiesonSoyuzare limitedto thoseof apassenger. 2. It isbesttoperformNASAastronauttrainingsessionsfor descentfromorbiton theSoyuzTM transportvehiclewithall crewswithwhichthepossibilityexists for executingadescent. 3. Beforethebeginningof SoyuzTM transportvehicletrainingtheNASA astronautshouldbeproficientin theRussianlanguage.
7.5 Trainingof AstronautsonMir Orbital Complex Simulators and System Mockups
Russian-American crews were trained on Mir simulators and system mockups using the forms and methods used to train prior Mir crews. Training of a third crew member, the U.S. astronaut, as flight engineer-2, was the main difference in crew training in the Mir-NASA program.
The need to train an astronaut in the scope of flight engineer-2 duties arose as a result of analysis of participation in the operation of onboard systems and in the science program on board the Mir by Norm Thagard, as part of Mir- 18 in the Mir- Shuttle program.
Training of NASA astronauts on Mir simulators and system mockups was conducted on the basis of the "Standard NASA Astronaut Training Program" No. E/5201, "Functions and Responsibilities of Astronauts and Mir Crew Members on Long-Term Missions," No. WG-5/NASA/GCTC/RSCE/5200, and science program Integrated Payload Requirements Document IPRD.
The NASA astronaut-training program called for individual practical classes (without participation of the entire crew) with astronauts on Mir simulators to develop the skills of operating the main onboard systems within the limits of flight engineer-2 functional duties. The purpose of these classes was to ensure a level of astronaut proficiency sufficient for training sessions as part of a crew.
The purpose of NASA astronaut training as part of a crew was to ensure Mir crew readiness to accomplish the entire mission on board the station and to take action in emergency and off-nominal situations. At this stage, in accordance with the scenario devised by the instructor, the crew as a single team would practice the basic elements of the mission program, including operation of several onboard systems and science hardware simultaneously, still-camera and video filming inside the Mir simulator, and conduct of radio and television communications with a simulated MCC.
Crew training on work organization on board the Mir, which in a number of cases causes problem situations associated with rescheduling of tasks and refreshment
158 (acquisition) of the necessary knowledge and skills with onboard systems and science hardware even during execution of integrated modes (redocking, EVA preparation and conduct, transport-cargo vehicle remote operator mode and so forth) was the task of training sessions in integrated control of Mir onboard systems and science hardware.
In the process of crew training on Mir simulators, the required work style was developed, i.e. the totality of knowledge and skill necessary to perform the tasks of the mission program, as well as the ability to find optimal solutions in planning and organizing work on the Mir.
Additionally, much attention was paid in Mir crew training to questions of safety assurance, in particular to emergency evacuation of the complex in the event of emergency situations associated with depressurization or fire.
The NASA astronaut standard training program on the Mir simulators is shown below. Besides the practical classes and training sessions on the simulators, it also includes classroom sessions on flight data files (playing out of various flight situations from the flight data files), classes on ascertaining changes in Mir technical status, study of MCC functioning, and classes on the mission program.
Practical Classes and Classes on the Flight Data Files, Mir Technical Status, Structure and Functioning of GOGU Groups, and Mission Program Table 7.7 Code Class topic Hours Location Notes 1 1-I3-1 Developing practical skills in 2 "]_oH- Conducted with crew operating the CYBK and YHBK 17KC consoles Developing practical skills in "]_on- Conducted with crew operating the CY_ and O1_3r 17KC onboard systems Technical status of Mir onboard class- systems and science hardware room MCC 1-11-I-2 Flight data files class- Conducted with crew in preparation room for session HH-3 Analysis of Mir mission class, progress GCTC HH-4 Mir-Shuttle joint procedures class- Jointly with STS crew room, GCTC IIH-5 Mission program consultation 2 MCC Total scheduled: 14
159 Integrated Training Sessions Table 7.8 J__* Code Class topic Hours Location Notes 1 Tp-1 I/tiC operation, experiments 6 "_]_0H- Only I-I_C operation (2+4) 17KC 2 Tp-2 Iq_C operation, experiments 6 "_oH- Only II_C operation (2+4) 17KC 3 Tp-3 1-IflC operation, experiments 6 "_OH- (2+4) 17KC 4 Tp -4 I-lflC operation, 6 "_[OH- as part of Mir No. - crew experiments, fire (2+4) 17KC+T _IK-TCF 5 Tp-5 CI-I-DO depressurization 6 "_[OH- (2+4) 17KC" 6 Tp -6 CFI-DO depressurization 2 "DY- as part of Mir No. - crew 734" 7 THC standard flight days 10 "_on- as part of Mir No. - crew (2+8) 17KC" 8 DKT standard flight days 10 "_on- as part of Mir No. - crew (2+8) 17KC" Total scheduled: 52
A board tests astronaut readiness during an examination session on the Mir integrated simulator ("_oH- 17KC") upon execution of the standard flight day program and test on the mission program.
7.6 Conclusions and Proposals for the Overall Astronaut Training Program
1. Overall the scope and content of the classes made it possible to train the NASA astronaut as a flight engineer-2 in the Mir crew with the functions defined by document No. 5200.
2. Because the replacement of Russian cosmonauts on the Mir did not coincide with the replacement of NASA astronauts, during training it was not always possible to hold joint training sessions of the American astronaut with all the crews with whom he/she would fly in space. The result was that in some flights the crew commander, without knowing the actual proficiency level of the astronaut, did not always trust the astronaut to perform individual flight engineer-2 operations, even when the latter was adequately trained to do so.
3. During ISS crew training, joint training of all members of a specific ISS crew should be conducted as frequently as possible, especially in the crew training stage. This will improve the effectiveness of work on board the complex and help to resolve the problem of language training in dealings between crew members and with ground control personnel, gradually reducing the use of interpreters in the training process.
160 4.TotrainISScrewsit isnecessarytomaximallyutilizealready-developedformsand methodsof trainingfor theMir complex.
5. In order to improve the training of ISS crews and improve the effectiveness of their work on board the station, it would be helpful to analyze the actions of ISS crews in the course of spaceflights and to use the results of analysis in training.
7.7 Training for Cosmonauts in the U.S.
The cosmonauts were trained to several levels based on their responsibilities: Full Mission Specialists, passenger only, visitors to the Shuttle during docked phase. Mission Specialist's duties varied but included the use of the Shuttle life-support systems and communications systems in nominal and selected off-nominal situations, payload activities, earth observations and photographic activities. For one mission, duties included use of the Shuttle's remote manipulator system, and on another flight, the cosmonaut conducted an EVA. Training related to egress and emergency egress was also provided to ensure the safety of the cosmonaut under all conditions.
For the cosmonauts that were being transported to Mir, the training was reduced and was primarily designed to keep the cosmonauts safe. This training also provided a general familiarity of the Shuttle life and crew support systems. Table 7.9 provides data on training hours for both the mission specialists' roles and the safety training only.
For the Mir crews that only visited the Shuttle while docked, the training focused on a general familiarity of the Shuttle life and crew support systems and transfer operations between Shuttle and Mir. In general this training averaged about 36 hours.
A portion of the payload training for the cosmonauts also occurred in the U.S. during the sessions according to the joint schedule.
161 0
"_ ._l _0 !! 7.8 Crew Training for Execution of the Science Program
7.8.1 Crew Training for Execution of the Scientific Investigations and Experiments
Training of crews participating in the Mir-NASA international program was a most important component of the successfully executed scientific investigations and experiments (HI-IH3) program. The quality of space vehicle crew training, as spaceflight experience demonstrates, greatly depends on the organization of training, on the level of science hardware training model availability, and on the timeliness of flight data file and training-procedure systems development, as well as on the proficiency level of instructors and teachers.
The order, scope, and content of training of Russian cosmonauts and American astronauts in the scientific program were decided in accordance with the concurred Organizational Coordination Plan of the sides to implement the Mir- NASA scientific program (US/R-001), the Integrated Payload Requirements Document (IPRD), and proposals made by both sides for each specific mission.
The work procedures for organization of crew training to conduct American experiments on the Mir called for preparation of a preliminary training plan by the American side based on information about the planned experiments, with development of a final work plan by Russian experts to make sure that American demands were met. Based on the experience of joint work in the Mir-Shuttle program, the following order of training organization was developed: Training in a joint science program for the mission began with a 3-week session conducted at JSC by JSC instructors, including basic training in the experiments and familiarization with science hardware. Subsequently training was conducted at the GCTC by GCTC instructors with the participation of representatives of all interested organizations. Six months before launch there was a second 3-week session at JSC, basically including practical training and meetings with the experiment suppliers. The final training stage in the science program was conducted at the GCTC using a concurred set of flight data files.
The work procedure also required that the American side deliver all documentation on experimental methods, along with the hardware used in crew training within the framework of the joint science program, to RSC-E and the GCTC. During crew training the GCTC instructors were guided by the dimensional installation drawings, electrical diagrams, development requirements and technical descriptions for the development of hardware (documents 100 and 101), as well as by existing flight data files and training- methods documents.
Experience acquired in implementation of long-term crewed flights testifies that effective execution of the science program is possible only when the crew members are active participants in the scientific investigations and experiments.
164 Thisin turnisachievedwhenin thetrainingprocessthecosmonautsarenot restrictedto formingtheskillsof experimentalgorithmexecution,butacquire somefundamentalknowledgeaboutthestudiedphenomenonin thenecessary scope,andbecomeacquaintedwiththedesignprinciplesof thescience hardware,itsdesign,andfunctioning.
In thisregard,basedonthecontentof theMir-NASA science program, the following crew tasks and functions were defined during training planning:
participation in preparatory operations (circuit assembly etc.) and execution of experiments and investigations in accordance with onboard instructions and procedures; recording of experiment results (including with onboard recording systems and hardware); operation, maintenance and repair tasks with the science hardware; storage and delivery to the ground of materials with the results of science experiments and investigations.
GCTC experts participated in concurrence of the science program, development of the experimental procedures, and correction of the flight data files (from the results of flight data files used in crew training).
In the process of crew theoretical and practical training at the GCTC, available integrated Mir simulators and models, specialized science hardware stands (operator workplaces), and science hardware training models were used.
Crew members and instructors from both sides participated in training sessions. In the initial stage of training sessions, experiment suppliers, hardware curators and flight data file librarians from both sides participated. Crew readiness to perform the scientific investigations and experiments program was determined from the results of graded training sessions.
In order to enhance the quality of training of American astronauts and Russian cosmonauts for experiments in the Mir-NASA joint program, the following training hardware was transferred to the GCTC:
1. MIM - vibration-insulated platform; 2. TEM - MIM technological assessment; 3. QUELD II - electric oven; 4. PUP-A and PUB-B power distribution panels; 5. BTS - biotechnical system 6. CHAPAT - active telescope; 7. MGBx - glove box; 8. CFM (MGBx) - candle flame under microgravity conditions; 9. FFFT (MGBx) - flame propagation in gas stream; 10. ICE (MGBx) - interface surface investigation; 11. Dewar flask - protein crystallization; 12. EDLS - improved load sensors; 13. Canon A1 video camera with supplemental attachments;
165 14.Hasselbladcamera; 15.TEPC- tissue-equivalentproportionalcounter; 16.SAMS-measurementof micro-accelerationsin space; 17.SPSR- portablespectro-reflectometerforspaceconditions; 18.DCAM-diffusion-monitoredproteincrystallization; 19.BCAT- testof binarycolloidalalloys
GCTCexperts participated in acceptance tests (FICId) of science hardware simulators in order to study the submitted hardware, check conformity of flight and simulator models and develop experimental procedures.
During training, experts of GCTC and other organizations developed and utilized simulator models for science experiments, simulators of crew automated workplaces, and specialized databases, and a number of modem technologies were introduced.
In addition the GCTC performed a number of tasks to improve the training laboratory facilities in all scientific disciplines of the program. For these purposes:
1. They developed a laboratory for training in technical experiments (k. 106-3 and k.107-3). The laboratory includes:
a working technical model of the Optizon- 1 TX unit (the unit is used to perform an American experiment in liquid-phase sintering (LPS); maintenance systems; video monitoring system.
2. A laboratory was developed for training cosmonauts to perform biotechnical and biological experiments (k. 313-KMY). The laboratory includes:
the "Inkubator" science hardware training system; the "Oranzhereya-Svet" science hardware training system, which is installed and connected for training sessions to the "Kristall" module simulator; a hardware system support of cosmonaut training.
3. American hardware was installed, connected and stored for k.313-KMY and k.225-2 (cosmonaut training laboratory for astrophysical and technical experiments) and k.208-2 (cosmonaut training laboratory for geophysical experiments).
4. Power distribution console PUP-B was connected to a 27 V power system in k.225-2.
166 5.Experimentalproceduresdeveloped.
6.Experimentonboardinstructionsdeveloped.
. Repair and checkouts of technical model of Optizon-1 TX unit and its control system "Oniks" (malfunction occurred during joint development with American experts of a procedure for conducting the LPS experiment).
To study the procedures and acquire practical skills the following workplaces were developed in specialized laboratories:
1. To conduct the BTS experiment, study of possibility and effectiveness of growing various bio-objects under microgravity conditions.
Hardware:
BTS - biotechnical system; PUP-A and PUP-B - power distribution consoles; MIPS-2 - "Lepton" computer and controller.
2. To conduct the experiment with the Dewar flask hardware. Growth of protein monocrystals.
Hardware:
Dewar flask; Canon A1 video camera with attachments.
3. To conduct an experiment with the "Inkubator" hardware system. Studying the influence of spaceflight on development of Japanese quail embryos.
Hardware:
"Inkubator" hardware system; power supply.
4. On the "Kristall" module simulator, for an experiment with the "Oranzhereya- Svet" hardware system. Study of plant growth under microgravity conditions and determination of the influence of spaceflight on plant life cycles.
Hardware:
"Oranzhereya-Svet" hardware system; camera; MIPS-2 - "Lepton" computer and controller.
167 5.To conducttheMIM experiment.Provisionof insulationfromvibrations undermicrogravityconditionsandcreationof forcedvibration.
Hardware:
MIM hardware: MIPS-2- "Leptoncomputerandcontroller; PUP-AandPUB-Bpowerdistributionpanels; doublecontainer.
6.ToconductTEM experiment.StudyofMIM hardwarepropertieswithregard toitscapacitytoensurevibrationinsulationundermicrogravityconditions. Hardware:
MIM hardware: MIPS-2- "Leptoncomputerandcontroller; PUP-AandPUB-Bpowerdistributionpanels; doublecontainer.
7.ToconducttheQUELD1Iexperiment.Measurementof diffusioncoefficients for certainbimetalsystemsundermicrogravityconditions. Hardware:
QUELDII hardware; MIM hardware: MIPS-2- "Leptoncomputerandcontroller; PUP-AandPUB-Bpowerdistributionpanels; doublecontainer.
8.To conductCFMexperiment.Studyof candlediffusionflameunder microgravityconditions. Hardware:
CFMhardware; GBxhardware(glovebox); powersupply.
9.ToconductFFFTexperiment.Studyof forcedcombustionpropagationunder microgravityconditions. Hardware: FFFThardware; GBxhardware(glovebox); powersupply.
168 10.ToconductICEexperiment:Studyof equilibriumformswhichareassumed byaliquidsurfaceundermicrogravityconditions.Studyof "liquid-vapor" interfacedynamics.
Hardware:
ICEhardware; MGBxhardware(glovebox); powersupply.
11.ToconducttheEDLSexperiment:Measurementof normalforcesand torque'scausedbycrewmembersduringnominalactivityonboardtheMir.
Hardware:
EDLS hardware; MIPS-2 - "Lepton computer and controller; PUP-A and PUB-B power distribution panels.
12. To conduct the LPS experiment: High-temperature liquid-phase sintering. Study of defect formation in sintering products: Analysis of wetting and formation of alloys.
Hardware:
"Optizon- 1" hardware. Servicing hardware set; Canon A I video camera with attachments.
7.8.2 Crew Training to Conduct the Medical Section of the Science Program
Successful accomplishment of medical and specifically biomedical experiments is not possible without careful study of working techniques and methods on the part of cosmonauts and astronauts in preparation for drawing blood, taking biological materials samples, and processing samples.
In the first stage cosmonauts and astronauts were trained in the method of drawing blood from a vein.
The first familiarization class was conducted by NASA in the U.S.
During the class the crew members were taught:
- how to find and isolate the major vessels; - sterile treatment; - procedures for drawing blood from a vein with a "Butterfly," a disposable needle with vacuum container; - procedures for drawing blood from a vein with a catheter.
169 It shouldbenotedthatcrewmemberswereinterestedin thetrainingmaterialand activelyparticipatedin thepracticaldevelopmentof blood-drawingskills.
Beforethestartof thepracticalclasses,crewmemberswereshownvideomaterials whichdetailedtherequirementsof theWorldHealthOrganizationformedical personnelregardingcompliancewithsafetyprocedureswithworkingwith biologicalmaterial.
Forpracticaldevelopmentof thesetechniques,cosmonautsandastronautswere askedtodrawbloodfrom4volunteers.Thisprocedureallowsthecosmonautsto quicklyacquirethetechniquesfor drawingbloodfromavein.
Asearlyasthefourthorfifth class,cosmonautscouldindependentlydrawblood fromavein. In thetrainingprocess,instructorspaidspecialattentiontopossible complicationsassociatedwithblood-drawingproceduresandthemethodsto preventthem.
In ouropinion,theprocedureof drawingbloodwith acatheterposedthegreatest difficulty,butbytheendof thefirst sessionall crewmemberscouldindependently drawbloodwithacatheter.
Experiencedmedium-levelmedicalpersonneltaughttheclasses.Howeverit shouldbenotedthatatthisstagethetrainingwasconductedin a"free"manner. Americaninstructorsdidnotstrictlyadheretotheflight datafile,becauseatthe startof thesessionit hadnotbeenfully developed.
At theGCTCtheRussianinstructorswerefacedwithasimplebutimportanttask: to maintaintheacquiredskillof drawingbloodfromavein. Thisgoalwas achievedthroughregularpracticalclasses.At thisstagethecosmonautsperformed all proceduresstrictlypertheflightdatafile. Thebasicdrawbackof theclasses wastheextremelylow numberof volunteersfor blooddrawing.Asarule associatesoftheMissionMedicalControlCenterresponsiblefor thisstageof trainingcameto theclasssitein lownumbers(oneortwo)ornotatall. In most casesblooddrawingwaspracticedontheGCTCphysician-instructorandthe NASAflight surgeon.
To enhancethequalityof trainingof AmericanastronautsandRussian cosmonauts,thefollowingtraininghardwarewasdeliveredtotheGCTCfor performingexperimentsin theMir-NASA joint program.
1. Blood drawing system; 2. Blood drawing system; 3. Blood drawing system; 4. Isotopic marker kit; 5. Antigen kit; 6. Blood sample analyzer;
170 7.Bar-codereader; 8.Pharmacokineticsystem; 9.TEAKmagneticdatarecorder; 10.Bloodpressurecontinuousmonitoringsystem; 11.Cardiomonitor; 12.Cardiologykit; 13.Posturalexaminationsystem; 14.Surfacesamplingkit; 15.Formaldehydemonitor; 16.Sorptionair sampler; 17.Air samplecontainer; 18.Lidohardware; 19.Laboratoryhardware; 20.Laboratoryaccessories; 21.Posturalequilibriumplatform; 22.Bicycleergometer; 23.Electricpowersystem; 24.Gazeexperimenthardware; 25.Locomotionexperimenthardware; 26.Metabolismhardware 27."Sleep"experimenthardware; 28."Coordination"experimenthardware.
Laboratoriesweredevelopedfor trainingcosmonautsto conductthemedical program.Theseincludedsimulatorsystemsandworkplacesforthefollowing fields:
1.Evaluationof skeletal muscle work ("Rabota"); 2. Morphological, gastrochemical and ultrastructural characteristics of skeletal muscles ("Myshtsa"); 3. Gaze and head coordination ("Vzor"); 4. Sensory perception characteristics ("Orientastiya") 5. Locomotive integration paths ("Orientastiya"); 6. "Expectant pose"; 7. Monitoring postural equilibrium ("Ravnovesiye"); 8. Motion biomechanics during locomotion ("Lokomotsiya"); 9. Surface microbiological analysis; 10. Water microbiological analysis; I 1. Water chemical analysis; 12. Air chemical analysis; 13. Investigation of onboard radiation situation; 14. Homeostasis of fluid and electrolyte and its regulation ("Gomeostaz"); 15. Calcium metabolism dynamics and bone tissue; 16. Kidney stone formation risk evaluation; 17. Protein metabolism ("Belok"); 18. Energy utilization ("Energia"); 19. Metabolic reaction to physical loads; 20. Erythrocyte metabolism ("Eritrotsit"); 21. Erythrocyte mass and survival
171 22.Pharmacokineticchanges("Farmakokinetika"); 23.Humoralimmunity("Gumor"); 24.Virusreaction("Virus"); 25.Peripheralbloodmononuclearcells; 26.Investigationof orthostaticstabilityusinglow-bodynegativepressure; 27.Investigationof orthostaticinstabilityusingambulatorymonitoringsystems, checkofbaroreflectorreflexesandValsaldatest("Barorefleks"); 28.Determinationof aerobicworkcapacityby meansof dosedbicycleergometry ("Stupenchataveloergometriya"); 29.Evaluationof temperatureregulationduringspaceflight("Submaksimalnaya veloergometriya")
7.8.3Conclusions,Notes,andSuggestions
1. Theadoptedworkproceduresfor organizingcrewtraining,existingand speciallydevelopedtechnicalandtrainingmethodsresources,aswellasthe proficiencyof GCTCinstructors,madeit possibleto providetimelyandhigh- qualitytrainingof RussiancosmonautsandAmericanastronautstoperforma wholegroupof scienceexperimentsandinvestigationsin theMir-NASA program. At the same time the inadequate supply of science hardware training models at the GCTC should be noted. Instead of equipping them with science hardware simulators (on the "Spektr" and "Priroda" module simulators), it was necessary to supply modules only with face panels or photographs of the science hardware.
2. During planning sessions for science program training, it is necessary to provide for mandatory delivery of science hardware training samples to Russia. It is necessary to concur with the GCTC on the number and type of manufactured equipment intended for crew training. During crew training, classes were held in two 3- or 4-week sessions in the U.S. In the period of yearlong crew training, science hardware training models were practically non-existent at the GCTC. This disrupted the continuity of the training process and prevents classes during the integrated training sessions on the Mir simulator before the start of the mission. It must become our practice not to clear science hardware training models for crew training if it has not undergone acceptance testing, if it has no safety certificate, and if it has not been concurred on in documents with GCTC experts on the question of degree of simulation of science hardware flight sets.
3. Experience has been accumulated in planning, organization, and conduct of cosmonaut and astronaut training in joint international science programs. This training must be carried out in the form of training sessions, in the process of which direct interaction of cosmonauts, astronauts, and Russian experts with the experiment suppliers and hardware developers is possible. In the organizational context, it is necessary to reduce the time between the final crew training session for the science program and the launch of the crews (in the process of Mir-NASA program implementation, these intervals could reach 6 months).
172 4. In order to enhance the quality of cosmonaut and astronaut training for the scientific program of experiments and investigations, it is necessary to constantly adjust the training process with allowance for experiment results of prior missions. To do this, it is necessary to have movie materials and brief reports of the science experiment suppliers at the GCTC regarding the results of the experiments.
5. Untimely delivery to the GCTC of flight data files regulating the distribution of responsibilities, the content, procedure and sequence of execution of operations by crew members hampered the training. In virtually all training for the Mir- NASA program, classes were held per intermediate versions of the flight data files and unapproved experiment procedures.
6. For a number of experiments, no Russian cosmonaut participation was planned, with the result that no cosmonaut training was planned, even though they had to participate in practically all experiments or in science hardware repair tasks.
7.9 NASA Astronaut Training for the Mir EVA Program
In the process of the Mir-NASA science program, there were plans for three EVAs by the NASA astronauts in Russian-American Mir crews. Data on these EVAs are provided in table 7.10.
EVAs by NASA Astronauts in Russian American Mir Crews Table 7.10 _.o EVA Crew Basic Tasks 1 V.V. Tsibliev Installation of optical properties monitors (OPM) on the DM. Installation of Benton dosimeter on the "Kvant-2" instrument science I(Mir-23) :ompartment (HHO). Removal of PIE and MSRE science hardware from the docking; rin[_ (lllCO). a,.ya. Solovyev Inspection of depressurized "Spektr" module. M. Foale Inspection of exterior cold radiator panel (HXP). iMir-24) Measurement of annular gap around the C13-2 drive using a special _auge. Securing of stowage to handrails in "Miras" science hardware on science/cargo module (HI'O). Rotation of_CB-4 and 03-4 (solar arrays) Removal of Benton dosimeter science hardware from "Kvant-2" module instrument science compartment. A.Ya. Solovyev Egress from science instrument compartment. D. Wolf Inspection of egress hatch. _Mir-24) Measurement with SPSR instrument on exterior surface of pressurized instrumentation module 1 (lIFO-I). TV report on first EVA - D. Wolf. Closure of egress hatch on main and supplemental locks. Check of clocking ring pressure integrity.
173 In the period from 6/10/96 to 6/28/96, 7 theoretical and practical classes (dry) and 5 sessions in the pool in "Orlan-DMA-GN" space suits were conducted on standard EVA operations with NASA astronauts J. Linenger and M. Foale.
Training of NASA astronauts J. Linenger and M. Foale in the EVA program was conducted in items "ORLAN-DMA-GN" numbers 19 and 20 and "ORLAN-M-GN numbers 7 and 8 on Mir mockups (DM, "Spektr" and core module mockups), using dimensional-mass and mechanically operating mockups of hardware and EVA systems.
Two training sessions each under pool conditions and two practical classes were held on EVA target tasks--installation of the OPM instrument on the DM and of the Benton dosimeter on the Kvant-2 module, and removal of the PIE and MSRE instruments.
Ground training of M. Foale for an unplanned EVA on 9/6/97 to inspect the exterior surface of the depressurized "Spektr" module was not held.
As a result of the training of the Russian-American EVA crew, operators consisting of Tsibliyev and Linenger (main crew) and Budarin and Foale (backup crew):
- acquired practical skills in installation of the OPM instrument on the DM and of the Benton dosimeter on the Kvant-2 module, and removal of the PIE and MSRE instruments;
practiced elements of the EVA timeline in accordance with the flight data files;
practiced actions in contingency off-nominal situations in accordance with the flight data files.
Training of NASA astronauts David Wolf and Andrew Thomas in the EVA program was conducted under conditions of modeled weightlessness in the pool and short-term weightlessness in the flying laboratory IL-76MDK.
Training for EVA under modeled weightlessness conditions in the pool was conducted on the Mir mockups (core module, Spektr, docking ring, DM) using the dimension- mass and mechanical operating mockups for SPSR and OPM in scuba gear, and in space suits "ORLAN-DMA-GN" No. 20 and "ORLAN-M-GN" No. 8. Scuba training of NASA astronauts was not conducted since the trainees already had scuba certificates.
When the scope of training for NASA astronaut David Wolf was determined, allowance was made for his prior experience in working in the EMU space suit at the JSC hydrolab. In addition, the conduct of standard EVA operations in scuba gear made it possible to reduce the total number of submersions of NASA astronaut David Wolf in the "Orlan-DMA(M)-GN" space suits.
174 In theprocessof trainingin standardEVAoperations,the"Orlan-DMA(M)-GN"space suit,aswellastheEVAprogramandproceduresfor measurementwiththeSPSR instrument,D.Wolf andA. Thomashad3practicalclasseseach(10hours).
D. WolfandA. Thomasperformed4checkoutsubmersionsin scubagearandpractical trainingin scubagearforstandardEVAoperations(16hours).In practicingthe standardEVAoperationsin theEVAprogram(OPMremovalandworkingwiththe SPSR),D. Wolf wassubmerged4times(16hours)in the"Orlan-DMA(M)-GN"space suits.Learningthepracticalskillsof donningandremovingthespacesuit"Sokol-KV- 2" and"Orlan-DMA-VL"flight modes,aswellasworkingin thesespacesuitsin weightlessnessundershort-termweightlessconditionsontheflyinglaboratoryIL- 76MDK,D.Wolf andA. Thomasperformed1flight (4hours).
Asaresultof trainingundermodeledweightlessconditionsin thepoolandshort-term weightlessnessontheflyinglaboratory,NASAastronautD.Wolf acquired:
theoreticalknowledgeandpracticalskillsin workingin scubagear; theoreticalknowledgeandpracticalskillsin donningandremovingthe"Sokol- KV-2"spacesuit,the"Orlan-DMA-VL"spacesuit,andthe"Orlan- DMA(M)-GN"spacesuit,aswellasworkingin thesespacesuits; practicalskillsin removingtheOPMandworking(measurement procedures)withtheSPSRspectro-reflectometer.
NASAastronautDavidWolf acquiredtheskillsof:
standardEVAoperationsin scubagearandin the"Orlan-DMA(M)-GN" spacesuit; EVAtimelineelementsin accordancewiththeflightdatafiles; actionsin contingencyoff-nominalsituations.
Asaresultof trainingunderconditionsof modeledweightlessnessin thepooland short-termweightlessnessontheflyinglaboratory,NASAastronautAndrewThomas acquired:
theoreticalknowledgeandpracticalskillsof workingin scubagear; theoreticalknowledgeandpracticalskillsin donningandremovingthe"Sokol- KV-2"spacesuit,the"Orlan-DMA-VL"spacesuit,andthe"Orlan- DMA(M)-GN"spacesuit,aswellasworkingin thesespacesuits.
Trainingof NASAastronautsA. Thomas and J. Voss in the EVA program was conducted in the period from September 30, 1997 to November 30, 1997.
Training sessions were conducted in the space suits "ORLAND-DMA-GN" numbers 21 and 22 and space suits "ORLAN-M-GN" numbers 7 and 8. The training process utilized:
175 thecoremodulemockup; instrumentsciencecompartmentmockup; specialairlockmockup; Kvantmodulemockup; cargoboomon servicestand; OPMsciencehardwaredimensionalmockup; SPSRsciencehardwaredimensionalmockup; "Truss-3"dimensionalmockup; "Sofor"trussdimensionalmockup; "Sofor"trustinstallationring(KM); Mir orbital complex training mockup (1:20); EVA tool kit.
Scuba training of the NASA astronauts was not conducted since the trainees had their scuba certificates.
When the scope of training of NASA astronauts Andrew Thomas and James Voss was decided, allowance was made for their prior experience in working in the EMU space suit at the JSC hydrolab.
The total number of submersions of NASA astronauts Andrew Thomas and James Voss in the "Orlan-DMA(M)-GN" space suits was reduced owning to earlier practice in standard EVA operations in the process of scuba training.
When the number and duration of theoretical and practical classes of NASA astronaut Andrew Thomas were determined, allowance was made for his training as part of NASA-6.
Practice of standard EVA tasks in space suits was conducted in the process of astronaut training in standard EVA timelines.
In the process of training, the following were conducted with A. Thomas and J. Voss:
theoretical and practical training in the EVA program (standard operations, terminology, tasks, training resources, science hardware), with A. Thomas 9 classes (13 hours), with J. Voss 10 classes (16 hours); practical training in scuba gear CBY-3: A. Thomas did 3 training sessions (9 hours), while J. Voss did 4 training sessions (12 hours); in the "Orlan-DMA(M)-GN)" space suit, A. Thomas and J. Voss did 4 training sessions each (16 hours).
As a result of training for EVA on the Mir orbital complex, NASA-7 astronauts Andrew Thomas and James Voss acquired skills in performance of:
standard EVA operations in scuba gear and in the "Orlan-DMA(M)-GN" space suit; standard EVA timelines in accordance with the flight data files;
176 actionsin contingentoff-nominalsituations.
Inconclusion,thescopeandcontentof trainingof the4NASAastronautsin theEVA programontheMir were adequate for successful accomplishment of the program of 3 EVAs.
7.10 Summary of Mir-NASA Crew Training
The Mir-NASA joint flight program allowed the GCTC to accumulate considerable experience in training Russian-American crews. The GCTC trained American astronauts:
• on the transport vehicle: as cosmonaut-researcher in the transport vehicle descent stage (if emergency evacuation of the Mir was required); • on the Mir orbital complex: as the flight engineer for individual systems of the Mir long-term mission; • on EVAs jointly with the Russian cosmonaut in order to accomplish the science program, inspect the Mir and restore its functionality; • on the joint science program at the GCTC and the JSC. Experience was acquired in medical certification and flight clearance of cosmonauts and astronauts. The Mir-NASA joint flight program made it possible to accumulate considerable experience in the general work of interaction of the Russian-American space crews and experts.
The Russian Space Agency and NASA experts had an opportunity to become acquainted with one another, with the space centers of the partners, and with the system and specifics of training cosmonauts for spaceflights in Russia and in the U.S. The joint work furthered mutual improvements and development of common approaches to cosmonaut training, planning and implementation of space missions and measures associated with them. Cooperation in space by the Russian and American sides made it possible to approach the next stage in the conquest of space -- the uniting of efforts to develop the ISSand to train the crews for its assembly and operation.
177 Astronaut Scott Parazynski performs an EVA during STS-86
178 Section 8 - Extravehicular Activity (EVA)
Authors:
Aleksandr Pavlovich Aleksandrov, Co-Chair, Crew Training and Exchange Working Group (WG)
Richard Fullerton, Co-Chair, EVA WG
Working Group Members and Contributors:
O. Tsygankov, EVA WG V. Ulianov, EVA WG A. Gridnev, EVA WG S. Kireevichev, EVA WG E. Lokhin, EVA WG V. Soroka, EVA WG N. Grekov, EVA WG N. Yuzov, EVA WG V. Ren, EVA WG D. Pushkar, EVA WG V. Shebeda, EVA WG A. Altunin, EVA WG I. Abramov, EVA WG A. Stoklitski, EVA WG G. Glazov, EVA WG A. Barer, EVA WG
Kevin Engelbert, EVA WG Calvin H. Seaman, EVA WG V. Witt, EVA WG M. Leonard, EVA WG Jerry Miller, EVA WG Mike Hess, EVA WG A. Groskruetz, EVA WG L. Chiao, EVA WG Jerry Ross, EVA WG K. Hemmelmann, EVA WG P. Benfield, EVA WG C. Perez, EVA WG R. Schwarz, EVA WG J. Kosmo, EVA WG G. David Low, EVA WG
179 8.1 Executive Summary
For decades, the U.S. and Russia evolved independent space programs. Many of us were always curious about what our counterparts were accomplishing and if we could learn anything from each other. Tentative informal contacts have blossomed through the Phase 1 program to the point where strong mutual understanding now exists. We have found more common ground on a wide range of topics than differences. We built a strong foundation for future International Space Station (ISS) efforts in the course of accomplishing useful work. The individual missions, hardware and operations were tools in this work. Above all, we know the people and processes which will carry us forward.
For external tasks, the means of accomplishing these mutual efforts was the joint EVA WG. This group was chartered in September 1994 with responsibilities for the safe and successful development of all Mir-NASA EVA requirements and much of their implementation. It included representatives from all the key U.S. and Russian organizations. From hardware development to crew training and real-time Mission Control Center (MCC) support, this group led the charge on all joint EVA ventures. Interaction and support involving all of the other joint WGs was essential to overall success, since EVA is not and cannot ever be accomplished by a single discipline.
This report highlights the primary accomplishments, lessons learned and processes which are felt to have been of most importance. For most cases, the lessons are merely reinforcements of ideas we hopefully already knew independently. Now that we have a better common understanding of each other, together we realize that we have the potential to be stronger and more capable with our combined resources than if we go it alone. The trick is finding the path which uses each other's strengths.
8.2 Structures/Processes/Relationships
From the start, the joint EVA WG has relied upon the positive characteristics of the people involved. On both sides, each participant brought a high level of experience to bear on all issues. Each side shares a common desire for crew and task safety/success as well as a sense of the importance of each spacewalk to the perceived overall readiness to the long-term future. All exhibited a strong dose of common sense and trust in approaching each problem. Patience was the essential virtue to finding common understanding and solutions. In resolving each objective, motivations and physics tended to be universal rather than unique.
As with most projects, early and continuous participation of experienced team members is essential. Initial solution concepts evolve over time for many reasons. With numerous parallel projects occurring at the same time and limited manpower, plowing up old ground is not efficient (though sometimes valid as a sanity check). Even so, for the sustained long-term health of all, new personnel and ideas must be injected periodically. For joint efforts, it is best if personnel start out knowing the
180 fundamentalsandgrowovertime.Hands-onorsuitedtrial anderrorlearning opportunitieswithrealhardwareandfacilitiesbenefiteveryonebecausepaperlevel engineeringisonlyasgoodastheexperienceof theparticipants.Attentionto trainingskilledpersonnelisjustasimportantto groundactivitiesasit is toon-orbit operations.
Toavoidreinventingthewheelandrepeatingpastmistakes,knowingacertain amountof historyisinvaluable.Toomanytimes,wehaveatendencyto focusso hardoncurrentandfutureissuesandnottakeadvantageof pastsuccesses.New solutionsbalancedwithconsiderationof existinghardwaredesignsandexperience canbefaster,better,andcheaper.TheEVA groupspentconsiderabletime exchangingrecordsofpaston-orbitstatisticsandtaskaccomplishments.This historicalinformationoftenexpeditedandhelpedvalidatesolutionswhichwould otherwisehavebeenmoredifficultandhadhigherperceivedrisk.
Aswithmostventures,thestart-upcanbethemostpainfulandtimecriticalperiod. Teambuildingandfamiliaritywitheachother'sorganizationalhierarchyreally enhancethistransition.A clearunderstandingof personalandinstitutional responsibilitiesisalsoessential.Workandsocialtimemustgohandin handso eachlearnsinterpersonalandorganizationalhandlingskills. Peopleandcultural skillsarecriticaltojoint efforts.Beingableto walkin theshoesof othersis anold buttrueclicht. Overseassurvivalskillswerelearnedthatcanbebuiltupon.Things normallytakenforgrantedlikebusinessservices,facilityaccess,transportation, food,healthservices,andentertainmentmaystill needimprovement,butthe essentialsdoexistandarepracticallyobtainable.Thesedetailsmakeall therestof thejoint activitieslivableandmoresustainable.
Advanceplanningandwell-thought-outconceptualsolutionsarefundamentals,the importanceof whichcannotbeunderstated.A weakup-frontunderstandingof the problemsandthepros/consof eachalternativecanleadtoalaterealizationof major painfulchanges.Marginin schedules,redundancy,andphysicalparameterscannot beoveremphasized.Likeagameof chess,morestepsworkedthroughin advance andmorecontingencyplansin yourpocketleadtovictory.Proactiveanticipationof issuesallowsmaximumresponsetime.Afterwards,attentionto detailand constantlysearchingfor weaknessesis important,butoverall,agoodendproduct startswith agoodidea.
Coordinatedimplementationof eachproblemsolutionhastobefacilitatedbya varietyofcommunicationmethods.Consideringthelongdistanceandtime differentialbetweenMoscowandHouston,eachcommunicationopportunityis precious.Eachagreementhastobeclear,fully understoodandwelldistributed. Face-to-facemeetingsandteleconferenceshavebeentheprimarymeansof exchanginginformation.Agreementsarerecordedin protocols,faxes,drawings, electronicmailandformaldocuments.Withouttheseandotherinformation exchangealternatives,noproductiveworkcanbeaccomplished.Evenso,periodic progressreviewsandeachside'scoordinationandenforcementofjoint agreements aremostcriticaltothequalityandtimelinessof implementationefforts.
181 A multidisciplineandmultilevelparticipationapproachalsoaidedourjoint efforts. Weworkedfromthebottomupandthetopdown(especiallywhentimewasshort). Drivingassumptionstowardzerowasaccomplishedbycoordinatingwithhardware designers,manufacturers,technicians,trainingorganizations,crewmembersand managementtoconfirmthatall wereheadedin thesamedirection.Sincelate surprisesarehardtorecoverfrom,morewidespreadinvolvementandregularpeer reviewaidsimplementationandacceptanceof theendsolution(thoughit canalso slowthingsdownif notcarefullymanaged).
MutualtimemanagementwasenhancedbyPhase1involvement.Realschedules andtemplatesof genericprocesseswereexercisedandunderstoodthatapplytoISS. Fromhardwaredevelopmenttocrewtrainingflowsandon-orbittimelines,wehave agoodgraspof realisticmilestonesanddurationsforimplementingvariousfuture activities.
Oneof therealstrengthsof thejoint EVAWG,relativetosomeof theotherjoint groups,wasthatparticipantsonbothsidessupportedbothPhase1andISSwork simultaneously.Forus,therewasnorealdistinctionandthelessonslearnedin one programfeddirectlyintotheother.Thisacceleratedourunderstandingof issues andsolutions.Insummary,theEVAWG,whichparticipatedin bothprograms, becamemuchstrongerasaresult.
8.3 Certificateof FlightReadiness(COFR)Process
TheCOFRprocessrelatedto EVAevolvedovertimeduringtheMir-NASA program. As with past well-rehearsed Shuttle missions, it addresses readiness of the people, operations and hardware prior to launch. During Mir, it also adapted to address unanticipated tasks/training. Feasibility and safety reviews were held for new operations before allowing on-orbit training or external activities. Future joint reviews will continue to emphasize early data exchange to avoid last minute "just- in-time" assessments. This extension of past Shuttle-style real-time planning and implementation reviews can be used for ISS events.
8.4 Training
Additional details on EVA training are further discussed in Section 7.
8.5 Accomplishments
1. STS-71 96 Bolts and Capture Latches - If the Shuttle and ISS fail to undock normally, the ultimate failure response calls for EVA release. Safely separating two massive objects without a major redesign of either vehicle was successfully developed before the first Mir docking. The same tools/techniques will be available for all ISS missions.
182 2.STS-71/Mir-18SpektrSolarArrayCutter- AfterSpektrdockedwithMir, one of its fishtail arrays failed to deploy normally. EVA was requested to develop a solution to improve available power for Mir systems and science. NASA and RSC- Energia (RSC-E) each manufactured, certified, and delivered candidate cutting tools in a matter of days. Using a small experienced team and adapting off-the-shelf parts, NASA's tool was ultimately used by the Mir crew to free the array. Similar tools/techniques will be available on ISS and can be utilized if needed again. This joint demonstration of rapid information exchange and accelerated tool development is a positive example of successful response to ISS assembly and maintenance failures.
3. STS-74 Docking Module (DM) and Solar Arrays - Design development and verification of the flight DM, its external solar arrays and water tank mockups of both served as an early example of the future for ISS. Joint requirements and inspection methods utilized for this Mir module have been migrated into use with ISS modules. Many design features have 1:1 correlation with ISS. The mockup implementation taught concrete lessons for the future. The benefit of start-to-finish experience with real hardware is invaluable.
4. Mir-21 Particle Impact Experiment (PIE) and Mir Sample Return Equipment (MSRE) - The first "joint" EVA called for Mir cosmonauts to deploy external U.S. science experiments. The up-front design of packaging, handling, locating, and attaching these items taught many of the fundamentals of MirlISS EVA integration and operations. NASA had not worked with similar science equipment since Skylab, so the extensive Russian experience in this realm was essential.
5. STS-76 Docked EVA (Mir Environmental Effects Payload [MEEP], Camera, Tethers/Foot Restraint) - The second "joint" EVA was not much different than most past Shuttle EVAs. It was, however, the first example of how the U.S. will perform EVA while docked and how to safely maneuver and restrain crew and equipment along ISS-type vehicles. Tasks included the deployment of 4 passive MEEP material science experiments, retrieval of a video camera for future reuse and evaluation of jointly designed tethers and foot restraints.
6. Mir-23 Joint EVA (Optical Properties Monitor [OPM], PIE, MSRE, Benton) - The next "joint" EVA was the first one to mix astronauts and cosmonauts outside in Orlan suits. Between preflight development, crew training and on-orbit work, most of the fundamental processes and techniques of Russian EVA were jointly exercised. While the experience with external science was important, the real benefit came from detailed understanding of generic EVA implementation.
7. STS-86 Joint Docked EVA (MEEP, Tethers/Foot Restraint, Simplified Aid for EVA Rescue [SAFER]) - To round out our joint experience, this EVA again mixed astronauts and cosmonauts, but in NASA extravehicular mobility units (EMUs). Besides retrieving the MEEP experiments, it yielded final experience with new EVA support equipment and utilization techniques prior to ISS implementation.
8. STS-86/Mir-24 Spektr Repair Hardware - Another example of rapid response to on-orbit problems is exemplified by the Spektr leak repair equipment delivered to
183 Mir by STS-86. Joint efforts included late training of the Shuttle EVA crew to transfer a large sealing cap from the cabin interior to the DM exterior for later use by Mir cosmonauts. Information exchanged on the devices and materials involved in finding and fixing module pressure shell leaks was mutually beneficial for ISS.
9. Mir-24 Spektr interior EVA - To restore power from the depressurized Spektr module, precedent setting internal work was planned, hardware was delivered to Mir and the tasks were safely implemented. Techniques of working internally in small volumes with poor lighting while anticipating and avoiding hazards were rapidly refined from past experiences. As another example for the future, the adaptability of basic EVA capability was proven in reaction to unanticipated hardware and situations.
10. Mir-24 Joint EVA (Spektr inspection, on-orbit training, Benton) - In the midst of a difficult period for all involved with Mir, the opportunity was made for more intense and first-hand joint experience in inspecting and diagnosing significant and widespread vehicle damage. Again, a mixed EVA crew of one astronaut and one cosmonaut was utilized for maximum mutual experience. This again showed the feasibility of building upon basic skills/experience via on-orbit training to safely react to unforeseen events and unquantified external conditions.
11. Mir-25 Joint EVA (preflight training, on-orbit training, space portable spectral reflectometer [SPSR]) - This was the third and last time a U.S. astronaut conducted EVA on Mir. Despite the extra challenge induced by a malfunctioning external hatch which altered the nominal egress/ingress procedures, the work was safely completed. The combination of all preflight and on-orbit experiences built a strong foundation for these on-orbit efforts.
12. STS-91/Mir-25 hardware transfer/return - The return of previously delivered, used and stored EVA hardware was a successful example of early coordination between past crew members and ground personnel. Clearly communicating where to look and what to look for was implemented by making sure everyone involved in MCC-M, on-orbit and in postflight processing had the same equipment information. The pre-pack effort was facilitated by starting early, consulting the memories of past cosmonauts, and getting photos and part numbers to all in MCC and on orbit.
13. Interoperable hardware - One of the big goals implemented and validated during Phase 1 was the development of hardware for shared use by both Orlan and EMU suited crew. Simple suit components like radiation dosimeters, moleskin abrasion protection, helmet visor antifog and personal hygiene underwear were jointly certified and used. Universal foot restraints, tether hooks, safety tethers and tool/body restraint tethers were proven and are being carried over for ISS.
14. Energy Module - The energy module was to be a Shuttle-delivered solar dynamics demonstration project that was ultimately canceled, but before that time,
184 it reachedthecriticaldesignstage.EVAparticipationin its developmenthada directbenefitasajoint learningexperience.Thislargecomplexhardwarenotonly neededEVA crewforassembly,contingencies,andmaintenance,butit wouldhave requireddirectinteractionbetweenEVAcrewandaroboticmanipulator.It also helpedusaddress"what-if"questionsrelatedto simultaneousoperationswith 2EMUand2 Orlansuitedcrewmembers.Exceptforthe4-personscenario,many of theoperationalEVAandroboticconceptsandsomeof theinterfacehardware will bereusedfortheISS9A.1SPP.
8.6 LessonsLearned
Todoanyproductivejoint work,youhavetohaveatleastabasicunderstandingof eachother'scapabilities,strengths,andweaknesses.Knowledgeofeachother's suits,airlocks,tools,facilities,vehicleinterfacesandoperationaltechniquesis crucialto findingcommonsolutions.Independentof differenceslikequantityof availabledocumentation,wefoundnofundamentaltechnicaldifficultiesprecluding joint cooperation.Forexample,theEMUandOrlanarebothadequateto do productiveworkwhenproperlyusedwithindesignparameters.Thisflexibility will beutilizedto optimizeandbalancetheworkwhereverit maybeneededonISS.
On-Orbit Training
Since an infinite level of pre-mission planning cannot anticipate all on-orbit contingencies and keep the crew proficient forever, the means of adapting to off- nominal situations is extremely important. Together we confirmed that the ground and on-orbit crew must have rapid, identical and detailed data on the hardware and operations for vehicle, airlock, suit and tool interfaces (CD-ROMS, scale models, procedures, videos, photos, etc.). Quality time spent coordinating subtle implementation details between the ground teams and each member of the flight crew must not be excluded. The crew members must further work out roles and responsibilities among themselves by pre-EVA choreography of each step of nominal and off-nominal procedures. In-cabin practice with the suits, tools and worksite mockups helps all confirm EVA readiness for almost any situation.
Intravehicular Activity OVA) Crew Support of EVA
Each of the Mir astronauts supported a number of EVAs performed by Russian cosmonauts. This included operating the Mir as well as, for example, controlling the deployment of the solar arrays. This support was essential to successful EVA completion. It also served as a reminder that IVA crew readiness to aid external work can only be accomplished with preparation/training and an adequate understanding of essential vehicle systems.
MCC-M, MCC-H and Station Operations
All other activities are sometimes secondary to what happens during real-time interactions between the crew and ground control teams. Quickly responding to problems and questions relies on all past knowledge and experience with a measure
185 of creative responsiveness. Each side gained first-hand practice in the methods and limitations of each other's air-to-ground voice, telemetry and email communication capabilities. Failure analysis and root cause information sharing was demonstrated. It was reinforced that EVA is just a part of the total operations of a station and that external task workload must suit the overall mission objectives of IVA science, maintenance, cargo transfer, crew handovers, and basic living.
Organizational Responsibilities
In the dynamic organizational environment leading into ISS, all are relearning their roles and responsibilities. JSC institutional groups, which did not fully embrace Phase 1 efforts early on, have now realized that their support for ISS cannot be restricted to U.S. boundaries. A reasonable and necessary level of joint insight and cooperative implementation is required that involves all. While information for early, easy, and comfortable decision-making may be challenging to acquire, if we all rely on consistent fundamental principles (and not format/quantity), then most issues are not that difficult. ISS is truly a global multinational vehicle and needs to be treated as such by all.
8.7 Summary of Joint Cosmonaut-Astronaut EVA
The EVA WG (WG-7) coordinated spacewalk operations for astronaut and cosmonaut EVAs on Mir and the Shuttle for the NASA science program.
An agreement confirmed in the protocol of the meeting of September 28, 1994, established a program for conducting astronaut and cosmonaut EVAs during implementation of the Mir-Shuttle and Mir-NASA program. The Mir EVA program foresaw joint participation of astronauts and Russian cosmonauts in EVAs with the goal of carrying out the science program, inspecting the modules, and recovering operability of the systems as well as of the station assemblies. Shuttle EVAs for Mir were based on the situation on Mir.
Working with cosmonaut V. Tsibliev, J. Linenger was the first astronaut to conduct an EVA in an Orlan-DMA suit. The program, which included installation of an OPM, an external dosimeter array (EDA), an orbital debris collector (MSRE), and a panel with blanket samples (PIE), was completely fulfilled. Thermal luminescence dosimeters (TLDs) were installed on the space suits. The American-design joint safety tethers mounted on the Orlan-DMA suits were tested.
M. Foale and A. Solovyev conducted the second joint EVA on Mir in order to inspect the Spektr module. They also removed the Benton dosimeter. During the spacewalk, astronaut M. Foale demonstrated his expertise and capability of carrying out not just the planned program, but also operations which might be necessary during EVA. M. Foale's good knowledge of Russian also contributed to the success of his work.
186 Thethirdastronaut,D. Wolf,andA. Solovyevsuccessfullycompletedajoint spacewalk.Theirgoalwastoworkwiththeexperimentalspectroreflectometer SPSR.TheEVAwassuccessful,anduniquedataregardingtheconditionof the outercoatingof severalMir surface areas were obtained.
During the STS-86 and Mir-24 mission, S. Parazynski and V. Titov, who were suited in EMUs, moved and fastened a large device designed to seal the Spektr solar array (CI_) drive from the Shuttle to the Mir docking compartment. The Russian restraint method utilizing two safety tethers was verified while working in the EMUs; mutually acceptable Yakor foot restraints for the ISS were tested.
Data on Mir EVA missions carried out jointly by the cosmonauts and astronauts are shown in Table 8.1.
187 0
0 O0
.<.< ZZ
i i
r_ O0 O0
_8_ _'B __ ,o_ _'_-g : o_.
.N._ _-5 _ °°_
_ 0 oo
= -g._
O_ e'q
o 0
o
t..
o_
0"
c'q
r_
O0 oO eq I. ©
0 © o 6
Z Z Z
© © ©
o "_ o_o o o _ _ o _ _ [-_ .oo _ _ o_ e._. _
._'_ _
O 0 o
t_
_D M _
0 0 O0
o_ o o o_
t',l & • ' i o o o o
c0 QJ
c/)
e_
o
0
_'_ _ _ _- .-._ _ ._ o
0
o o
_m o
o_
'o
° o
O= _o
0 o_ _o Replacement Hatch for the Spektr Module
191 NASA 5 Astronaut Michael Foale on the treadmill aboard the Mir
192 Section 9 - Medical Support
Authors:
Valeri Vasilyevich Morgun, Co-Chair, Medical Operations Working Group (WG) Valeri Vasilyevich Bogomolov, Co-Chair, Medical Operations WG
Sam Pool, M.D., Co-Chair, Medical Operations WG
Working Group Members and Contributors:
Roger Billica, M. D, Co-Chair, Medical Operations WG Tom Marshburn, M. D., Deputy Co-Chair, Medical Operations WG Karen Mathes, Medical Operations WG
193 9.1 Introduction
The agreement of 5 October 1992 between the Russian Federation and NASA regarding collaboration in the area of crewed spaceflight, subsequent Russian Federation-U.S. intergovernmental understandings and agreements between the Russian Space Agency (RSA) and NASA, including the contract NAS 15-10110, specified the Mir-Shuttle and Mir-NASA program of joint crewed space missions.
The initial Phase 1 of the Mir-NASA project included the realization of the Mir- Shuttle program, and furthermore provided for:
1) Missions of Russian cosmonauts aboard the Space Shuttle; 2) Long-duration missions of American astronauts aboard the Mir space station; 3) Space Shuttle and Mirjoint space missions with rendezvous and dockings, during which a NASA astronaut was rotated into the crew of the basic expeditions aboard the Mir station.
These efforts were realized within the scope of the Contract NAS 15-10110 between the RSA and NASA.
Considering the considerable differences in the organization of the crew medical health and work fitness support systems in Russia and the U.S., the RSA and NASA medical hierarchies were faced with the complicated tasks of coordinating and integrating the organizational principles, methodology, requirements and medical means of both countries to support the health, work fitness, and professional life of the combined Russian-American crews, and of providing conditions for successful execution of the planned space programs. For this reason, WG-8 (Medical Support) was created in 1994 within the frameworks of Phase 1, which on the Russian side was directed by V.V. Bogomolov (Institute of Biomedical Problems [IBMP]-State Scientific Center) and V.V. Morgun (Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Center, or GCTC), and on the American side by Sam L. Pool and Roger Billica (Johnson Space Center, or JSC).
The main task of WG-8 was to develop the logistics to allow cooperation between the medical organizations that support the medical safety and health maintenance of the joint Russian-American crews in the training stages, during missions aboard the Russian and American transport vehicles (Soyuz TM, Mir Space Station, Space Shuttle STS), and after reentry.
9.2 Goals
The combined efforts were basically targeted toward:
- Coordination/approval and practical implementation of medical screening and health certification of the members of the joint crews; - Biomedical training of the joint Russian-American crews in the mission programs at JSC and GCTC;
194 - Refinementandapprovalofjoint requirementsrelatedtothemedicalprocedures andequipmentusedtomonitorthehealthof thecrewbefore,during,andaftera mission,topreventionof adversebodychangesduringalong-durationmission, optimizingthecrews'diet,andtosanitary-hygienic,toxicologicandradiation monitoringof thecrewedspacecrafthabitat; - Coordination,elaborationandrefinementof crewon-orbitmedicaldiagnostic proceduresandequipment,andrenderingmedicalaidwhennecessary; - Coordinationandoptimizationofthecrewpsychologicalsupportsystem; - Trainingof medicalpersonnel(flightsurgeons)andtheirdirectparticipationin thesupportofthespacemissionsatMCC-MoscowandMCC-Houston(for flight surgeons:- NASAmedicalpersonnelwhenworkingattheGCTCand, atMCC-Moscow,andRussianmedicalpersonnelforflight operationswhen workingatJSCin Houston); - Developmentandoperationofamaterial-technicalbaseforgatheringand processingthemedicalinformationthatisobtainedin thecourseof medical supportofjoint crewedmissions,refiningthecommunicationfacilitiesfor the RSAandNASAmedicalsupportgroupspecialistsandpreparingabasisfor the developmentof telemedicinein theinterestsof missionon-linemedicalsupport.
At thesubsequentstagesof theworkof WG-8,crewmedicalsupportonlong- durationjoint missionsalsoincludedtheimplementationof theSpaceMedicine Program(SMP)-- usingAmericanmedicalequipmentandprocedures,in special investigationsaboardtheMir station for the purpose of improving the crew health maintenance system and optimizing the elements of crew medical flight support aboard the ISS (monitoring the crew's habitat and health, means of rendering medical aid, microbiological and toxicological investigations, psychological monitoring and psychological support, radiation monitoring, and so on). From the standpoint of medical operations, Phase 1 of the program provided an opportunity to integrate the medical equipment and skills of both parties to continue preparing for crew health maintenance during and after long-duration spaceflight, and to establish lines of international communication and decision-making procedures, which are extremely important to the efforts within the scope of the ISS program.
9.3 Principles and Structure
The guiding principles of organizing the joint efforts for mission medical support under Phase 1 of the program included:
Utmost regard and respectful consideration on the part of one partner for the knowledge and experience, and the developed regulations and procedures of the crew health maintenance system of the other partner, the search for acceptable compromises in keeping with the medical responsibility of each party for medical decisions made regarding their own crew members (RSA - in regard to the cosmonauts, NASA - in regard to the astronauts); Support of the standards, requirements, and national laws of biomedical ethics when conducting joint operations in different aspects of medical support;
195 - Strivingtowardcandidness/opennessbetweentheparties'responsiblemedical representativesin regardtoissuesrelatedtocrewsafetyandhealthin all phases of executingthejoint mannedprogram.
Moreover,themedicalsupportproceduresandarrangementsfor thejoint missions of theMir basic expeditions were based primarily on Russian laws, and medical control of flight operations was managed by the Russian mission control in close cooperation with and including active participation of the NASA flight surgeon. Medical support of the Space Shuttle STS joint missions is based on NASA regulations. Mission Control-Houston provides the medical supervision of the flight procedures, which includes the active participation of the Russian flight surgeon, or an RSA medical official. Accordingly, the primary responsibility for the safety of the mission safety and maintenance of crew health during the Mir missions lay in the hands of the Russian partner, and during the Space Shuttle (STS) missions - the American partner.
To manage the practical operations related to the different collaborative aspects of crew medical health support during the Phase 1 program, work subgroups were created under WG-8 (Working Group 8), for crew biomedical training, crew health monitoring, on-orbit prophylaxis, psychological support, medical diagnostics and aid, nutrition, Mir atmospheric monitoring, radiation monitoring, on water supply, on implementing the SMP program, and for communications. Specialists of both parties within the scope of their subgroups coordinated their efforts toward practical implementation of the tasks to support the medical health and work fitness of the joint crews. They also conducted joint investigations, developed recommendations in complicated and off-nominal situations, and when medical problems arose. The leaders of WG-8 participated in the Phase 1 WG-8, and took active part in solving problems of medical safety when defining the scientific research program, in the on- orbit use and resupply of medical equipment and supplies, and drew up medical reports for the next stage of the Phase 1 program. Flight surgeons from both sides played an active role in this work.
9.4 Evaluating Crew Health and Medical Monitoring
The document WG-8/NASA/RSA/-E 8000, "The American-Russian Joint Space Program. Phase 1. Medical Requirements," which was developed and approved by WG-8 on 29 March 1995, is the basic document that stipulates the joint requirements for medical support of joint missions. It includes the basic regulations that govern cooperation between the RSA and NASA medical structures in the training stages, during and after the missions. This document integrates the Russian and American requirements, and the provisions for medical support of spaceflight. It is founded both on the requirements and stipulations of the contract NAS 15 10110, and on prior agreements and understandings within the scope of the Continually Active Working Group on space biology, medicine and microgravitation. This document laid the groundwork for joint decisions regarding the medical flight readiness evaluation of American crew members for the Mir station missions. It is based on the provisions contained in the Requirements for Medical Operations
196 aboardtheSpaceShuttle,JSC13958,ParagraphE, andtheOrderof theUSSR Ministryof DefenseandMinistryof PublicHealth,No.390/585,dated21October 1989,concerningtheadoptionoftheInstructionsforMedicalExaminationand Monitoringof cosmonautcandidates,cosmonauts,andcosmonautinstructors,andis basedontheprovisionsandmanualsthatregulatetheactivitiesof theRSAand NASAmedicalsupporthierarchies.
TheChiefMedicalBoardforMedicalSupportandMedicalProblemsperformedthe healthcertificationof theastronautstoclearthemfor trainingatGCTCfor Mir station missions, on the basis of the medical documentation submitted by JSC and the agreed quantity of examinations.
The JSC Medical Board conducted the health certification of the cosmonauts to clear them for a Space Shuttle mission, on the basis of the medical documentation submitted by the Russian party, and the agreed quantity of medical examinations.
Problems that arose were solved through coordination and discussion (personal meetings, teleconferences, facsimile communications) within the scope of WG-8, inviting the assistance of clinical experts from both countries when necessary. In complicated situations, the medical administrations of RSA and NASA (Joint Commission on Space Medicine) joined in solving medical problems, both before and during a mission.
For long-duration missions aboard Mir, the astronauts basically adopted the standard Russian system of medical health monitoring. The procedures and sequence of on-orbit medical examinations of the astronauts were coordinated and approved by the American flight surgeon. The quantity and extent of the tests/investigations are given in Appendix 1 and 2.
Moreover, the American flight surgeons conducted regular confidential medical interviews with the basic expedition astronaut, and also conducted additional approved medical health tests on the astronaut, and evaluated his/her physical fitness within the scope of the American SMP (Appendix 3, SMP).
The NASA flight surgeon at MCC-Moscow was fully informed of the results of standard crew medical monitoring, and likewise provided information to the medical directors at MCC-Moscow concerning the outcome of medical monitoring under the American program. Good working cooperation and mutual understanding were established as a result of the joint efforts of the NASA flight surgeon and the Medical Support Group (FMO) at MCC-Moscow.
Under Phase 1 of the program, the results of the crew member in-flight medical exam required a special discussion by the medical specialists of both parties with adherence to bioethical standards. Furthermore, it should be noted that the results of crew medical health and physical fitness monitoring adequately reflected the crew members' health dynamics, and permitted necessary adjustments to the medical support program.
197 Theappropriateadjustmentsweremadefor femaleastronautsandcertainother astronautsin themedicalmonitoringprogrambyconsentof theAmericanparty.
Approvalof thePhase1medicalmonitoringflightprogrambythemedicaland biomedicalsubgroupspecialistsmadeit possibleto:
IntroducenewdatacollectionequipmentaboardtheMir station, and Refine the integrated response procedure of Russian and American ground services to mission medical problems in real time.
Russian cosmonauts among the crew of the Space Shuttle STS, before, during and after a mission, utilized the health monitoring system in effect at JSC with the participation of the Russian flight surgeon. In the process, the medical monitoring and medical examination program at the preflight training stage was modified upon consent of the Russian party to take into account the individual features of age and sex.
On the basis of the knowledge and experience gained during Phase 1, the "NASA and RSA Tentative Approach to Questions of ISS Medical Policies" was developed, and was approved on 21 November 1996, and the Requirements for Medical Examinations and Health Standards (AMERD) were refined later on a multilateral level for the ISS crews. Examination norms that are acceptable to all ISS partners were adopted. The positive outcomes of these documents include the following:
• A clear understanding of the problems of medical ethics in both countries, as well as the population differences; • Better understanding by American medical operations specialists of the physical and psychological factors characteristic of long-duration spaceflight, including the launch and reentry aboard the Soyuz TM spacecraft, which must be considered in the primary medical examination; • Establishment of lines of communication among medical specialists of U.S. organizations on the one hand, and organizations of the Russian Ministry of Defense and Ministry of Public Health, on the other, which are currently in use during conversations concerning the ISS joint efforts.
9.5 General Crew Training Overview
All in all, 7 NASA astronauts were trained at the Yuri A. Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Center (GCTC) for long-duration space missions aboard the orbital station Mir as flight engineers-2, and 4 astronauts were trained for EVA, under the Mir- NASA Program.
To implement the joint Russian-American science program two training sessions were held at the Johnson Space Center and as many at the GCTC involving the primary and backup crews of the Mir-21, Mir-22, Mir-23, Mir-24, and Mir-25 missions.
198 FourRussiancosmonauts(Kondakova,Titov,SharipovandRyumin)hadtheir trainingatJSCasmembersof theAmericancrewsin preparationfor flightsaboard SpaceShuttleandperformedtheseflightsundertheMir NASA program.
Nine Shuttle crews (STS-71, -74, -76, -79, -81, -84, -86, -89, -91 ) took a week-long training in Russia to study the Mir systems for joint activities with the Russian crews. The Russian Mir-20-25 primary and backup crews took their week-long training at JSC to study the Shuttle systems and to get orientation in joint activities with the STS crews (altogether, six times). Training of the Mir-18 and -19 crews took place in the framework of the joint Mir-Shuttle missions.
The biomedical training of NASA astronauts in preparation for space missions aboard the Mir research complex was carried out at the GCTC in two stages:
- training specifically programmed for a group of astronauts - crew training.
9.6 Astronaut Training
Astronaut training included the following areas:
• fundamentals of aerospace medicine; • medical health monitoring and examination; • physical training; • medical tests, studies and exercises; • preparation for joint activities.
The biomedical training of astronauts and cosmonauts as a group and during the following stages was done with a due account of their background knowledge.
The purpose of biomedical training of astronauts was to ensure a good physical condition, good functional psychophysiological capabilities of the body, and a high level of performance through the following:
• preserve and improve health, maintain high level of fitness and keep the body in good condition, • organize and conduct medical investigations and training to maintain a good level of stabilization in exposure to spaceflight factors, • know health monitoring procedures, • use onboard countermeasures, • operate life support systems of a specific crewed spacecraft, • use onboard sanitary, epidemiological, and radiation protection measures, • acquire skills in disease diagnostics, and using onboard medical supplies and countermeasures.
199 Biomedicalgrouptrainingprogramincludedthefollowingbasicissues:
• organizationof medicalsupportduringhumanspaceflights, • effectof spaceflightfactorsonthehumanbodyin lengthyflights, • psychologicalaspectsof along-durationspaceflight,andpsychological supportmethods, • medicalmonitoringsystemsof aspacevehicleandaspacestation, • physicaltraining.
By solvingtheseproblemssuccessfullythemainobjectivewasattained,thatof ensuringarequiredlevelof astronauts'professionaltrainingthatwasnecessaryfor continuingcrewtraining.
9.7 BiomedicalCrewTraining
Thepurposeof biomedicalcrewtrainingwastoprovideasetof medicalsupplies andcountermeasurestoensurethecrew'sgoodhealthstatus,highperformance, readinessto accomplishthebiomedicalobjectivesandthemissionasawhole.
Thebasicbiomedicalgoalsof crewtrainingareasfollows:
• establishdynamichealthmonitoringandpreventivemedicaltreatment measurestopreserveandmaintaingoodhealthandto promotephysiologic capabilityandperformanceduringspaceflighttrainingandrealization, • increasepsychophysiologicaltolerancetoexposuretospaceflightfactors duringtrainingusingspecialstandsandsimulators, • adjustmentof individualpsychologicalqualitiesandspecificfeaturesof crewmembers'interaction, • traincrewtoperformspecificbiomedicalresearchandexperiment procedures, • in-flightbaselinedatacollectionproceduresfor medicalmonitoring purposes, • arrangeandperformasetof hygieneandsanitarymeasures,andaquarantine program.
Datafor theextentof biomedicalastronauttrainingisshownin Table9.1.
Crewtrainingincluded: • medicalhealthmonitoring, • increasingtolerancetospaceflightfactors, • studyof medicalsupportavailableonthetransfervehicleandtheMir, • practical lessons and training sessions using simulators and other facilities of the transfer vehicle and the space station, • getting grounding in the technical aspects of the medical monitoring aids of the crew transfer vehicle and the orbital station, • Mir-NASA research program training, • physical training.
200 Medicalhealthmonitoringwascarriedout by the American and Russian specialists in compliance with the "Joint U.S.-Russian Phase 1 Program. Medical Requirements." The quantity and aspects of medical monitoring are shown in Table 9.2.
Training aimed to increase tolerance to spaceflight factors did not involve all areas. By agreement with the American specialists training was performed in pressure chambers and centrifuge with g-loads related to the ascent and descent timelines. In view of the specific features of Soyuz missions, lectures were read on spaceflight factors. The GCTC specialists also carried out medical operations to support the activities of cosmonauts during training in hydrolab and during flights in the IL- 76MDK laboratory aircraft for microgravity simulation. The quantity of training in this area is given in Table 9.3.
Training in the medical support of the transfer vehicle and station was conducted in conformity with the data initiated by the RSC-Efor the flight-specific training of the Mir-NASA crews. The extent of training in this area is presented in Table 9.4.
Practical experience was gained in operating medical monitoring and preventive measures in the context of learning the MK- 1 procedures (bioelectric cardiac activity), MK-4 (lower body negative pressure), and MK-5 (cardiovascular system performance under physical stress), MK-8, MK- 108, MK- 120, MK- 12.
The astronauts have studied the purpose, composition, and location of the medical monitoring facilities and the equipment used to ward off the adverse effects of weightlessness on board the Mir. They have acquired stable skills to operate this equipment and also learned to provide maintenance and to control off-nominal situations.
The astronauts have received a fairly thorough grounding in the uses of medical equipment to perform scientific biomedical experiments and they developed and reinforced the skills required to operate them without assistance.
The cosmonauts' physical training consisted of general physical and special physical exercises, and also they have learned to use onboard physical training aids. The results are presented in Table 9.6.
9.8 Role of Russian Flight Surgeons
Russian flight surgeons provided medical support for training at NASA. Their activities included:
1. Training in the medical operations program for American spaceflights 2. Medical care of the crew members during their training sessions:
• providing medical assistance; • medical monitoring of their health;
201 • participating in medical lessons on medical equipment and on how to render medical assistance on board; • monitoring their physical training.
3. Provision of medical assistance to representatives of Russian organizations 4. Performing a liaison role between the management of medical subdivisions at NASA and RSA during the resolution of urgent issues in medical care for Phase 1 and the beginning of Phase 2.
9.9 Conclusions and Recommendations for the Overall Medical Support Program
Joint training with the crew members enabled the astronauts to perform tasks successfully in the training program as part of the crew and to acquire skills at the required level in performing tasks for the biomedical section of the spaceflight program.
In the opinion of the Russian crew members and the American astronauts who worked on the Mir-NASA program during the stage of training as part of Russian- American crews, more attention should have been paid to issues of psychological compatibility among the crew members. For this purpose, more prolonged training should be conducted within each crew, with whom one would have to work later on board the Mir Space Station. This could also be improved by holding joint training sessions on how to live under extreme conditions.
The results of examination during final simulation training sessions showed that the main objective was achieved, i.e. the crew's level of professional training proved to be sufficient for them to be certified for spaceflight and to carry out the science program on board the Mir Space Station.
It would be advisable to use the experience acquired in training crews on the Mir- NASA program when the ISS crews are trained.
9.10 Accomplishments and Lessons Learned
9.10.1 Preventing On-Orbit Adverse Changes in the Body
The Russian system of prophylaxis was relied on to protect the crews of long-duration expeditions from the adverse effects of flight conditions in Phase 1. A regular program of prophylaxis was prescribed for the Russian members of the joint crews that basically involved physical exercises with the onboard exercise training equipment (the UKTF physical exercise training complex, and the VB-3) and expanders according to a special 4- day routine, wearing the flight loading suits (Penguin), cyclic administration of pharmaceuticals (cardiotropic, nootropic, eubiotics), a cycle of low body negative pressure exercises, and ingestion of nutritional additives in the final stage of the long-duration mission, ingestion of water-salt additives on the eve and the day of landing, the use of means to
2O2 protectagainstg-forcesin thedescentphaseandearlyonin thepostflight period.Theuseof constrictivefemoralcuffsfor theRussiancrew membersisoptionalin thesystemof flightprophylaxis.
TheflightprophylaxisprogramfortheNASAastronautcrewmembersof thebasicexpeditionsaboardtheMir station, largely consisted of physical exercises on the flight exercise equipment according to regimens that approximated those recommended by the Russian party, and the optional use of the flight loading suit. The American party refused the low body negative pressure exercises in the final phase of the mission, and prophylactic courses of pharmaceuticals. Since the astronauts were returned to Earth aboard the Space Shuttle, following the advice of the NASA physicians, they adhered to the American system of salt-water loading the day of landing, and the American g-force protections (the American flight suit), though the Russian "Centaur" anti-gravity suit was available if necessary in the early postflight period.
All crew members were advised to wear special earphones to protect their hearing.
For the most part, with little exception, the astronaut members of the basic expeditions aboard the Mir station attempted to heed the advice of the physical prophylaxis specialists that was conveyed to them directly, or through the American flight surgeon. While the NASA-6 and NASA-7 programs were in progress, the American exercise physiologists and NASA flight surgeons recommended several regimens and systems of physical exercises apart from the Russian ones, which the American party considers as promising for the ISS. The results of these refinements must be reviewed by specialists from both sides.
The general conclusion amounts to the fact that the state of health of the crew of long-duration missions, and not just while on orbit, but also after their completion, depends on how fully the program of preventive measures is followed, particularly the physical preventive measures. This applies both to the Russian cosmonauts, and to the American astronauts of the basic expeditions. The efficacy of the flight prophylaxis must be thoroughly reviewed once the Russian specialists have acquainted themselves with the results of the postflight clinical and physiological tests performed on the astronauts after a long-duration mission.
9.10.2 Rendering Medical Assistance
Throughout Phase 1, the Russian and American specialists carried out a whole array of efforts aimed at formulating and refining the onboard diagnostic equipment and rendering first aid, by incorporating the American medical kits and medical first aid equipment (defibrillator, crew member fixation/immobilization system, medical therapy sets).
203 Thequantitativeandqualitativeinventoryof theAmericankit (MSMK) andtheRussianmedicalkitswasreviewedjointly,andapproved.The decisionwasmadetouseboththeAmericanandRussianmedical supplies,whichwasthepracticeusedto treatindividualcrewmembers. TheRussianversionof theAmericanflightdatafilesforthediagnostic equipmentandmedicalsupplies(MedicalChecklist)wasreviewedand modified/corrected;defibrillatoroperatinginstructions(Defibrillatorcue cards)weredeveloped.
Theexpansionof thetherapeuticcapabilitiesof theonboardmedical equipmentandsuppliesgreatlyenhancesthereliabilityof themedicalaid flight systemasawhole.Theprospectsfor refiningthediagnosticaidsand renderingemergencymedicaltreatmentto ISScrewmembershavebeen determined.
9.10.3 Mir Habitat Monitoring
In the course of implementing Phase 1 of the Mir-NASA project, particular attention was paid to evaluating the condition of the habitat of the basic crews aboard the Mir station, as determined in part by the length of service of the station, and periodic deviations and failures on the part of the life support systems. Emergency situations occurred as well (ignition of the solid fuel oxygen generator cartridges, depressurization of the Spektr module due to a collision with a Progress cargo vehicle, failures in the complex control system with a power shortage aboard the station). Because of their possible medical consequences, these situations demanded special attention and a quick response of the technical and medical ground services. In 1997, the toxicologic hazard related to ethylene glycol that entered the station atmosphere due to a leak in the thermal control system aroused special concern.
In these situations, the Russian and American specialists maintained regular contact (teleconferences and meetings) to keep one another informed, and to develop consensual decisions regarding medical arrangements (additional medical monitoring and crew health observation, station atmospheric and water supply testing and monitoring, prophylactic and preventive measures for the crew, additional deliveries of medical supplies to the station).
During this time standing commissions of specialists at RSC-E and the IBMP worked to develop and implement recommendations in order to gain control of the off-nominal situations as quickly as possible. These commissions were staffed with a profile of the most competent technical, toxicological, and medical specialists.
Besides the repair equipment, additional Russian and American means for toxicology monitoring, air- and water-quality testing equipment, and
204 therapeuticandprotectiveequipmentwerealsodeliveredtotheMir aboard the Progress and Space Shuttle vehicles.
The results of medical health monitoring of the crew members conducted at these times and on completion of the missions, usually failed to disclose any adverse changes in body health, though the periods of forced limited use of flight prophylactic equipment, and stressful work/rest regimens in such conditions undoubtedly diminished the efficacy of the medical support system.
The basic outcome of these efforts was the unique combined experience gained in addressing medical and medical-technical problems in various off-nominal and emergency situations during a long-duration mission. Moreover, a number of American crewed spacecraft habitat monitoring aids were approbated in long-duration mission conditions, and their positive and negative aspects were identified, which is extremely important for ISS operations.
9.10.4 Nutrition System
The nutrition subgroup of WG-8, including Russian specialists (from the IBMP-State Scientific Center, the Scientific Research Institute GCTC) and specialists from JSC, completed extensive efforts to discuss and adopt the "Food Standards for Mir-NASA Program Crews," and to develop and adopt the "Phase 1 Nutrition Plan." The requirements and procedures for microbiological and toxicological quality control of crew member food rations were approved. The acquisition and delivery of joint Russian- American rations to the Mir station aboard the Progress and Shuttle vehicles were defined.
Individualized menus were developed for each expedition based on personal preferences. The adoption of a joint Russian-American ration for the crews of Phase 1 greatly expanded the variety of foods and diversified the rations. Using these rations demonstrated that the bodily requirements of the crew members for basic food components and energy were being met. By and large, the crew members of Mir-21-Mir-25/NASA-1-NASA- 7 rated the joint rations favorably, while offering certain suggestions and recommendations, which were taken into consideration in developing the menu for the first ISS crews. The experience and knowledge gained here during Phase 1 made it possible to develop "The Nutritional Plan for ISS Assembly," and the menu list for the first basic crew, which were approved.
9.10.5 Flight Medical Equipment
The opportunity to gain experience in joint operations aboard the Mir station required the development of a new American medical kit, which was better and more complete than any of its U.S. aerospace predecessors.
205 Thesystemsspecialistsandtheirpartnerssupportedtheworkof 7 meetingsonflight equipmentintegrationthattookplacefrom 1994 through1997,witheachnewmissionexpandingthevolumeof American equipmentaboardMir.
A unified training program for ISS missions was developed in order that the Russian cosmonauts and American astronauts would receive identical training for work on the ISS medical equipment.
• The contribution of the astronauts, cosmonauts, and Russian flight surgeons to the training and use of medical kits is being applied to improve the American medical supplies and procedures for the ISS. • Within the scope of the Phase 1 program, the American and Russian specialists trained all Mir station crew members in the use of flight medical equipment and procedures, thereby ensuring reliable mutual familiarity with the medical supplies in accordance with the training objectives, so that the resources of both sides might to used to the fullest, including all pharmaceuticals, diagnostic, and therapeutic equipment. • An important step forward in the development of American flight operations support facilities was the decision to procure and deliver a defibrillator and a crew member medical immobilization/fixation system to the Mir station for the NASA-5 mission. The experience acquired in the process of this effort will be utilized in providing the ISS with medical material, and in the possible use of such material by the ISS crews. • Experience from Phase 1 made it possible for the U.S. ground medical support services to acquire the skills for rapid innovation of medical equipment and supplies. The mutual confidence and experience gained in the implementation of the Phase 1 program afforded the development of procedures to effectively rate the safety of onboard medical equipment. For instance, when Mir's Spektr module was damaged during NASA-5, the medical operations specialists, in conjunction with their Russian partners, expeditiously replaced the American medical system damaged in the Spektr module. The new equipment was produced, outfitted and certified by the American medical operations specialists within 24 hours. The new medical equipment was processed and shipped to Russia for delivery to the Mir station aboard a Progress cargo vehicle. Representatives of the IBMP and RSC-E ensured that these American medical kits were delivered quickly and smoothly to the Russian launch site. • The onboard availability of both the Russian and American medical kits dictated the need for a spare medical kit, which should be used as a "central supply."
206 Thisdialoggreatlybroadenedtheknowledgeandexperienceof the NASAmedicalspecialistsin regardtotheanticipatedmedicalrisk of long-durationspaceflight.TheRussianmedicaloperationsservice haspresentedanextensivelistof themedicalproblems,which occurredduringtheSalyutandMir programs, helping the American party to finalize the development of the medical kits and to train the ground support services for Phase 2 operations.
9.10.6 Behavior and Work Fitness
Practical psychology and psychiatry evolved as the Russian and American specialists together supported the condition of the crew aboard the Mir orbital station and Space Shuttles. A broad range of behavioral and work- fitness problems was studied at NASA in support of the long-duration missions in which U.S. astronauts participated, namely:
A permanent behavior modification and work-fitness program was established within the hierarchies of the NASA medical service. This service was charged with the task of developing and implementing all means necessary to support the psychic health, work-fitness and well-being of an American astronaut aboard Mir, and to provide for the needs of the ISS crew members.
The Russian and American psychological support services reached mutual understandings in the methods and mission culture. An American psychological support program that continued the existing Russian program was established. It included:
- Two-way audio and video links between JSC (NASA), GCTC, and the Mir station; - Uplinks of local and national news from the U.S. through Mission Control; - A personal collection of books, musical recordings, CDs and video tapes for rest and relaxation; - An e-mail system between the Mir station and the astronaut's home and workplace; - Regular delivery of personal packages from families, friends and the psychology service aboard a Progress cargo vehicle; - Informational, emotional, and substantial support of families and close friends and associates of astronauts aboard the Mir station; - The addition of a short-wave ham radio as means of support for families and crew members; - A feedback procedure based on computerized programs introduced by the American party as a means of observing and supporting the state of the crew, and also of monitoring the efficacy of the psychological support and better understanding the influence of these measures on the psychological state.
207 • Thepartiessharedinformationandofferedmutualsupportto facilitatesocialadaptationof thecrewandreciprocalunderstanding of all crewmembers. • TheAmericanpartydevelopedacrewpsychologicaltraining programtofamiliarizethemwiththeflight conditions,adaptation techniquesandpsychologylessonsof pastRussianandU.S. missions,andwithsimilaractivitiesin polar,underwaterandother remote,self-containedsituations.TheAmericantrainingprogram alsoincludedacourseonRussianculture. • TheAmericanpartydevelopedthecomputerizedSpaceflight CognitiveAssessmentTools(SCAT),whichallowedtheastronaut toevaluatehisowncognitivefunctions.Thisinstrumentwasdeemed necessaryin viewof thepeculiaritiesof thehabitatin long-duration spaceflight,whereexposuretotoxicsubstances,adverse atmosphericchangesin anenclosedvolume,andheadtraumaare possible. • Thebehaviormodificationandworkfitnessexpertsalsohaddirect accesstotheexperienceof ourRussiancolleagues,andexperience of themissionasawhole,in regardto:
- Preflighttrainingandestablishingaroutine; - On-orbitcrewmembermedicalsupportandbehaviormodification; - Interactionandoperationof groundservices; - DirectdailyinteractionwiththeRussianmedicaland psychologicalsupportgroup; - Postflightre-adaptationandestablishinganactivityroutine. (Oneof theseexpertswasalsoaNASAFlightSurgeonof the Phase1Program)
TheRussianpsychologicalsupportsystemaboardtheMir space station, which was used in Phase 1 of the Mir-NASA project, is depicted in the diagram in Appendix 4. The psychological support logistics for NASA 1- 7 are presented in the Table in Appendix 5.
9.10.7 Postflight Readaptation
The Phase 1 program afforded the American party the opportunity to utilize the extensive Russian experience in developing a postflight readaptation program. On the whole, this program rather effectively facilitated the returned crew members' continuation of an active lifestyle in normal Earth gravity. Though all American astronauts who flew aboard the Mir were returned to Earth aboard Shuttles, Russian flight surgeons were present at the landing site after each ShuttlelMir mission. Because of the cooperation between Russian and American exercise physiologists throughout the execution of Phase 1, the program of rehabilitation measures for the ISS crews include the appropriate modifications for the reentry phase. Examples of the most important lessons of our cooperation include:
208 • Thefactthattheprogramof mandatoryphysicalexercisesbefore andduringamissioniscriticaltothemaintenanceof physicalshape in space,andatthesametimeaffectstherateandentiretyof completereadaptationtogroundconditionsafteramission; • Theuseof loads/weightsin anaquaticmediumasaconservative, safemethodof restoringthemuscles,bonesandligamentsfor the returntointenseactivityonEarth; • Theimportanceof thecrewmembersspendinglongvacationswith theirfamiliespriortoanothermissionappointment.
9.11 Summaryof theMedicalSupportGroup'sAccomplishments
Onthewhole,oneof themostimportantpositiveresultsof thePhase1program, whichbythewayisratherdifficult tomeasure,istheexperiencein cooperationthat wasgainedbytheRSAandNASAgroundmedicalservicesduringthemissions. Bothpartiesnowaremoreeffectivelymaintainingbilateralandmultilateral(with otherinternationalpartners)dialogs,whichiscrucialtosolvingon-orbitoff- nominalsituations.Withthehelpof theRussiancolleaguesandthroughtheuseof Russianexperience,theAmericanmedicaloperationsspecialistshavelearnedmuch duringtheimplementationof Phase1in regardtothepreparationfor andreal-time responsetocomplicatedsituationsthataremorelikelytooccurin long-duration spaceflight.
Anotherimportantoutcomeof themedicalsupportofjoint long-duration missionsisthepreservationof thehealthandfunctionalreservesof members of thebasicexpeditions,whichensuredboththeexecutionof themission, andtherelativelyfavorablecourseof thereadaptationprocessesafterthe completionof themissions.
ThetaskschargedtoPhase1WG-8atthistimearefinished;ajoint discussionandreviewoftheclinicalandphysiologicalaspectsof the completedoperationsstill remainsfortheworktobefinalized.It isbestif theexperiencesof thecombinedeffortsforthecrewmedicalhealthsupport of Phase1areutilizedtotheutmostin orderto solvethemedicalproblems of ISSdeploymentandoperation.
209 Dates and Quantity of NASA Astronaut Training Table 9.1
Mission, Astronaut Mir Operation Training With Astronaut Training Total (backup) Start/Finish Dates Russian Crew Dates (generic/crew) Biomedical (backup) Training Hours NASA-2 _'STS-76 Mir-21 01/03/95 - 06/24/95 273 Shannon Lucid 03/24/96 Onufrienko, 06/26/95 - 02/26/96 (John Blaha) _STS-79 Usachev 09/26/96 (Tsibliev, (188 days) Lazutkin) NASA-3 _'STS-79 Mir-22 02/23/96 - 07/01/96 337 John Blaha 09/16/96 Korzun, Kalery 05/29/95 - 07/19/96 (Jerry Linenger) STS-81 (Manakov, (4/14 months) 01/22/97 Vinogradov) (129 days) NASA-4 STS-81 Mir-23 09/23/96 - 06/12/96 388 Jerry Linenger 01/12/97 Tsibliev, Lazutkin 11/29/95 - 12/20/96 (Michael Foale) liSTS-84 (Musabaev, (2.5/13 months) 05/24/97 Budarin) ( 132 days) NASA-5 _STS-84 Mir-24 01/13/97 - 04/09/97 277 Michael Foale 05/15/97 Solovyev, 03/04/96 - 04/30/97 (James Voss) _STS-86 Vinogradov (3/14 months) 10/07/97 (Padalka, Avdeev) ( 145 days) NASA-6 _STS-86 09/02/96 - 08/27/97 410 David Wolf 09/26/97 09/02/96 - 08/12/97 (Wendy Lawrence) _tSTS-89 (12/11.5 months) 01/31/98 (128 days) NASA-7 _STS-89 Mir-25 01 / 16/97 - 12/05/97 402 Andrew Thomas 01/22/98 Musabaev, Budarin 09/08/97- 12/05/97 (James Voss) _STS-91 (Afanasiev, (10.5/3 months) 06/11/98 Treshchev) ( 139 days)
210 Listing and Quantity of NASA Astronaut Health Monitoring Table 9.2 Mission Chief Physiologic Phased Medical Training (Prime, Medical Clinical Medical Diagnostics & Sessions Backup) Board Examination Examination Therapeutics NASA-2 32 2 8 (Lucid, Blaha) NASA-3 4 16 0 2 - (Blaha, Linenger) NASA-4 4 32 2 2 - (Linenger, Foale) NASA-5 4 32 2 2 - (Foale, Voss) NASA-6 4 32 3 6 - (Wolf, Lawrence) NASA-7 6 32 2 6 9 (Thomas, Voss)
211 Areas and Quantity of Astronaut Training in Spaceflight Factors (hours) Table 9.3 Mission, Theory of Diving Physiology Centrifuge High-Altitude Training Astronaut Spaceflight and Medicine g-loads and EVA Medical (backup) Factors (Lecture and Credit) Training Monitoring (pressure chamber) NASA-2 11 Shannon Lucid (John Blaha) NASA-3 11 John Blaha (Jerry Linenger) NASA-4 14 Jerry Linenger (Michael Foale) NASA-5 2 23 Michael Foale (James Voss) NASA-6 2 17 David Wolf (Wendy Lawrence) NASA-7 2 17 Andrew Thomas (James Voss)
212 Biomedical Mission Program Training (hours) Table 9.4 Mission, Psychological Medical Support Aids Mission Science Astronaut Training Program
NASA-2 6 39 Shannon Lucid
NASA-3 21 101 John Blaha
NASA-4 13 116 Jerry Linenger
NASA-5 4 65 Michael Foale
NASA-6 23 160 David Wolf
NASA-7 21 160 Andrew Thomas
213 NASA Astronaut Technical Training (hours) Table 9.5 Mission, Nominal Medical Monitoring Science Hardware (NASA) Astronaut and Countermeasures Equipment on Board NASA-2 4 6 Shannon Lucid
NASA-3 4 18 John Blaha
NASA-4 4 7 Jerry Linenger
NASA-5 4 Michael Foale
NASA-6 4 13 David Wolf
NASA-7 4 4 Andrew Thomas
214 Astronaut Physical Training (hours) Table 9.6 Mission, General Physical Special Physical Onboard Astronaut Training Training Countermeasures
NASA-2 100 40 12 Shannon Lucid
NASA-3 102 40 John Blaha
NASA-4 110 60 10 Jerry Linenger
NASA-5 80 4O 12 Michael Foale
NASA-6 90 3O 14 David Wolf
NASA-7 90 3O 10 Andrew Thomas
215 Cr_ 0
_J
._ _ _ _'_ L_
._
_<
cs_
c_
o
z______
•r_ cb t_
Imq ._
O0
0 _a Q_ C_ oo z_ 0 _ o_ 0 z_ _Q 0 ,-1 < > Appendix2 Russian-U.S.JointContributionstothePhase1Medical CARDIOPULMONARY Defibrillator / CMRS Defibrillator / CMRS Mir 23 / NASA 5 EKG at rest MK-1 Mir 18 Mir 18 EKG with er[ometer MK-5 Hematocrit MK-120 MO-9; Portable Clinical Blood Mir 18 Analyzer / Venipuncture Holter Monitoring MK-44-4 Mir 18 LBNP MK-4 MSD008; Automatic Blood Pressure Mir 18 Cuff ENVIRONMENTAL Acoustic Noise Measurements MSD084; Mir Acoustic Dosimeter Mir 25 / NASA 7 Air Quality assessment MK-40-5 MO-14 / MSD007 Solid Sorbent and Mir 18 Grab Air Samplers; Formaldehyde Monitors Air / Surface Microbiology MK-35 MSD022; Microbial Air Sampler, Mir 18 Surface Sampling Kits Mir 18 Crew Microbiolosy MK-10 MSD02i Mir 18 In-flight Radiation Area Dosimeters MO-12 / MSD004 Tissue-Equivalent Monitoring Proportional Counter (TEPC), Area Dosimeters, Personal Dosimeters Special Environmental Drager Tubes Combustion Products Analyzer, Real STS-84, Mir 23 / Assessment Time and Archival Sampling Kits for NASA 5 Ethylene Glycol and Carbon Monoxide Mir 18 Water Quality: Chemical MSD022, MAD053 Water assessment Microbiological Experiment Kits, Refrigerated assessment samples, Microbial Capture Devices MEDICAL Mir 18 Blood Chemical Analysis MK-12 MO-9; Portable Clinical Blood Analyzer NASA 3 Crew Status and Support Review of questions CSST software Tracker (CSST) contained in CSST Cognitive Assessment MO-6 / MSD085 Mir 25 / NASA 7 SCAT software Photodocumentation of Skin MSD076 Mir 23 / NASA 4 Injuries Urinalysis MK-27, Mk-28 MO-9 (Human Life Sciences project Mir 18 contributed Dried Urine Chemistry capability) PHYSICAL FITNESS Arm Ergometry MK-8 NASA 4 Body Mass Measurement MK-6 Mir 18 Physical Training Assessment MK-108-2 MSD077 Heartwatch, Automatic Mir 18 Blood Pressure Cuff, Cycle Er[ometer 218 °_ v 0 o 0 _° _._ 0 0 [-_ 0 _,_ a _._ == . 0 0 "=_ _Nz -_ , _ 8 -_ _ _._ 0 0 _ _ = _ _'_._ _._ _ Z 0 •"_ ] _ 0 _._ ._ 0 C_ 0 0 0 _° i uz_6_ _ u 0 o6 6 6 66 s c_ "_ f_ O i _ ° _Q .'_ 0 • c_ c 8 i i i o o Z [- © C_ °_ o o i- c_ f_ !° c_ © _ o o °_ •_ "_ o o J_ _0 00 I _ 010 _J r_ r_ 0 0 0 _._ o 0 m _-_ < < e_ Z _xo e_r_ ,.._ o o "_ 0 0 o _ _ 0 _ 0 0 o o ,,,p, c'l o _5 ok _D _e 0 E 0 0 ._ oo o o 0 0 0 p:, z _ 0 o_ -a 0 0 o o 0 0 e0 o o o © 0 0 o o (-q 0 "7 6 6 0 0 o p-, 0 z 0 r_ r_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 (0 (J (0 ,6 Q,) "_ r-- Q; Q; Q_ 0 c- ¢) O °_ o _o 0 0 P_ 0 0 © o ¢..) C_ -r_ 0 C_ o p. 0 0 .o ",,._ o ._ e_ ,.c: .r_ Q, (-,,I o, © © © t'g ° C_ t'l c_ "el < .=e_ EJ ;_ s._._ 0 ,,,_v O N:.-_ ¢) Z "O '-_ _O_ m o C; o._ "O "O "0 "¢1 8 _ ¢,) _ _o,_.= o _.eg _ r,. O O 0 0 o (.J _Q (J dl 0 r_ ,-- O o6 c,J, 'T t"- _o "O 'I", Q; -o,._ "O "el ¢) O e_ "el i o ¢) r-- c_ o_,..i D-- O p. Q; c_ (.,)o _< p.., r_ 0 O "O "O _,_._ _3 "O p.,, _o _o c_ 0 :'O p,,, Ir-._ r; 0 0 8 0 o (J o 0 e., o ._ > e. 0 ("4 °_ x_ o o o 0 o _J _°__J _Ne_e °_ •._ cO ._Z_ _ _ "0 _ _-_ _ _ _._ E = _'_ -o _ 0 _J .=. r_ 0 0 i Z 0 0 _ i _ O5 b5 1¢3 0,1 i _._ __ _. oOr_ 0 _._._ t:m 0 O .._ o r..) °_ "0 "0 E -g 0 <8_ o 0 0 0 L) _'_ * "0 t_ l) 0 i 0 ! "0 0 .0 "8 ¢",1 0 r_ .u 0 0 , _a o_ ' 0 o11"0 i ¢II t_ o _ _. _._ 0 0 0 0 "_ _ 0 _ _ -_o _ _ _ :_ ._ _ o o e _ _o__: ;..= •6... _ "_ _ • "_ _ 8,_ = o _ _ _S _o •_._. ,, _ _ o_ s _ _S- __ 8. ¢_ "_ _ ._. ",_, 0 , 0 ._ < 0 _ _ 0 _e ,_ g8 0 _u 0 _._ 6 o_ _ "0 . o_- _._ z_ _ _ •_ _ "2. < @0 i _o_ _ ° _'_._ _ _ _._ 0 _J 0 _J "0 '0 0 0 0 0 0 oO _ t_ o_'T, r_ __ _-_ _,_ 1'_ ' L. , _, _.., _-" ¢_ "."I _J 0 _,u i .r" 0 a. .-_ i _5 0 '0 .o t_ _'_ =u _J 0 _J u "o o '-a ¢3 0 0 •r_ "S 0 .9,o ._. 0 0 a ._ [... o r_ 8 Z i o 6 z o o °_ e_ :l "0 g 0 0 0 .x- _t'N e., oe © ._.o r_ _, _° 0 _ _ •._ 0 _ "_ °_ ._ __" o _-_ _"_ ©e., 0 =o .o "._ O0 0 o_ 0 ._ .u r._ =_ Z r_ (",1 t'l t",l 0_ "0 O 0 0 O o [- O o o 0o 0 .o 6_= "C: 2 °_ .. (_, o _A o o_ | .< 0 .< | 0 °_ 0 0 ¢.) m o 0 0_ _,¢ 0 i i o .o 0 0 C_ "el "_ 0 o o o t'N _ Z > 'T © 6 6 © 0 Z° 0 0 0 r-" O 1.1 r-,_e 4 1".1 e-I, ' t"l e'l I_, O _'7, ,,4 -= _ 46 ,,4" 1",1 _o2 a 8---_, .I- [2) =_ _ a o , 0 Z = 5) u. o ,.= e_ ,.ID .-= .o _ _ o , u m %1 o O {o Z o_ O "a z ,_ o_ ._ 8 8 8 m N N_ (',1 .= _._ ÷ ÷ o_ + + Z •_-o + -I- -t- -I- -I- "f" Jr o 0 0 -t- !_ "t" "t- "l" "1- eq _,_ _ .o _ .u o 0 O,O o o Ox 0 0 0_ ',,0 0 NASA 6 astronaut David Wolf and NASA 7 astronaut Andy Thomas during a handover session 232 Section 10 - Crew Operations on Mir Authors: Aleksandr Pavlovich Aleksandrov, Co-Chair, Crew Training and Exchange Working Group (WG) Yuri Nikolayevich Glaskov, Deputy Chief, GCTC William C. Brown, Co-Chair, Crew Training and Exchange WG Jeffery Cardenas, Co-Chair, Mir Operations and Integration WG 233 10.1. Introduction Continuous habitation and operations of NASA astronauts onboard the Mir began with the docking of Shuttle STS-76 on 24 March 1996. Beginning at that time, international crews consisting of two Russian cosmonauts and one American astronaut worked on board the Mir station. One of the features of the Mir/NASA program was connected with the procedure of rotating astronauts to the Mir. After the first NASA astronaut, Norman Thagard, the rotation of astronauts utilized the Shuttle spacecraft, which docked with the Mir docking module (DM). Shannon Lucid, the NASA-2 mission astronaut, performed the first long-duration flight under the Mir-NASA program. She was delivered to the Mir station on 24 March 1996 to join the Mir-21 crew working on the complex. Later, there were five more successful missions (NASA-3, NASA-4, NASA-5, NASA-6, and NASA-7). Seven Shuttle dockings with the Mir were performed during this time to complete American-Russian transport operations. The program of NASA astronaut stays on the Mir complex ended on June 8, 1998, after the undocking of the Mir complex and Shuttle STS- 91. The total of 7 astronauts participated in the long-duration missions on board the Mir within the framework of Mir-Shuttle, Mir-NASA programs; 3 of them as cosmonaut researchers, 4 astronauts as Mir flight engineers-2. U.S. astronauts worked on orbit together with members of 6 Russian main expeditions: Mir-18, Mir-21, Mir-22, Mir-23, Mir-24, and Mir-25. 10.2. Joint Activities of Mir and Shuttle Crews Joint activities of astronauts and cosmonauts while on orbit were determined by mission plans for Mir, Soyuz TM, Progress M, Shuttle, and documents developed by several WGs. The results of this activity are presented in corresponding sections of this report. Crew joint activity began the moment communications were established between the Mir and the Shuttle (approximately three hours prior to docking). From that moment the crews worked from a common flight data file, which included a joint timeline and joint flight procedures. During the mated flight of the Shuttle and the Mir there was a wide range of joint operations including: • exchanging seat liners and personal equipment of astronauts in the Soyuz vehicle; • transferring Russian and American cargo from the Shuttle to the Mir to re- equip and repair onboard systems and hardware for scientific research and to supply the crew with food and water; • transferring Russian, American, and European Space Agency cargo from the station to the Shuttle for subsequent return to Earth; • completing a line of experiments aimed at decreasing the risks in assembling the International Space Station (ISS); 234 • holdingjoint pressconferencesandothersymbolicactivities; • joint planningof crewactivitiesontheMir-Shuttle complex. After undocking, the Shuttles performed a fly-around of the station and conducted still and video-photography of the Mir complex exterior surfaces which included the goal of detecting the leak site on the Spektr module during flights STS-86, -89, and -91. 10.3. NASA Astronaut Crew Transfers During Mir-Shuttle mated operations, flight crew transfer occurred between the astronaut that was completing his flight and the astronaut that was arriving on the complex. In their postflight reports, the NASA astronauts noted that the crew transfer was a very important process and the successful completion of the flight program might depend upon the proper organization of the transfer. With the goal of ensuring a rapid adaptation by the astronaut arriving on the complex, it is advisable to create a single procedure for all astronauts and include in it the following steps: • correction of the flight data file in accordance with the actual condition of the scientific equipment; • psychological support for the astronaut arriving on the complex (above all, render assistance in psychologically adjusting to extended flight); • render assistance when using amateur radio communications; • prepare scientific equipment and hardware for transfer (clear placement of scientific equipment according to predetermined storage locations, marking the hardware and lockers); • filling out log books for hardware and the electronic version of the inventory taking into account the actual condition and location of scientific equipment and hardware; • instruct the arriving astronaut about the following issues: * assuring crew safety; * placement of scientific equipment and hardware; * changes that took place during the flight to the scientific equipment and the astronaut's activity algorithm in operating and servicing the scientific equipment; * demonstrating how to perform individual scientific experiments and the procedures for placing the scientific equipment into its initial state; * explaining and demonstrating how to perform daily procedures and servicing of the complex's onboard systems in accordance with the duties assigned to the astronaut. As experience has shown, taking these steps allows the arriving astronaut to partially adapt to these issues and to begin to work independently within four-five days of flight. Complete adaptation occurs after approximately three weeks of operations on the complex. In planning the handover it is necessary to consider that it is more difficult for the American astronaut to complete the handover than the Russian crew. The Russian crew has both the commander and the flight engineer involved. The 235 Americanastronauthastocompletehishandoveralone. In thefirst flightsundertheMirlNASA program the astronauts noted a lack of time allocated for crew handover. In the future, the planning situation will be significantly improved, however all of the astronaut' s free time is devoted to handover. 10.4. Accomplishments While completing the MirlNASA program, the astronauts onboard the Mir complex completed the following tasks during their work: • acquisition of experience in extended operations by astronauts on board the station; • performance of scientific research and experiments in various disciplines; • refining the interaction between the partners in the joint space program. 10.5. Objectives The primary objectives of the scientific program were: • obtaining technical and procedural experience in performing scientific research in the conditions on the orbital space station; • studying the Mir complex environment concerning microgravity conditions and performing experiments in fundamental biology, studying microgravity, and Earth observations from space; • performing experiments which demonstrate selected technology and hardware, to confirm ISS designs and procedures; 10.6. Crew Responsibilities Practically all parts of the scientific research and experiments were completed by NASA astronauts. Russian cosmonauts were required to participate in cases where NASA hardware interfaced with the Mir complex and to render the necessary assistance when performing experiments and during off-nominal situations. We learned from experience that the level of actual participation of Russian cosmonauts was larger than was identified in the program documentation, especially when contingency situations with scientific equipment occurred. In addition to the research duties, the NASA astronauts rendered assistance in operating individual systems on the complex, provided EVA support inside the complex, and participated in three extravehicular activities (EVAs) with Russian cosmonauts. NASA astronaut - Mir Mission flight engineer-2 responsibilities included: • to implement scientific experiment and research program; 236 • to inventorytheirscientificprogramhardware; • 1oconductcrewhandover; • 1oparticipatein cargotransferoperations; • 1operformhousekeepingoperationsonboardMir (cleaning, preventive measures); to maintain own life support and ability to work; • to communicate with Mission Control (MCC); • to provide TV reports, videorecording and photography; • to utilize life support systems in nominal modes; • to participate in maintenance activities; • to perform EVA if it is planned in the mission program; • to perform activities to recover from contingency situations. Some of the NASA astronauts noted in their postflight reports that during spaceflight they did not consider themselves to be a full-fledged flight engineer since in the operations plan only scientific experiments were prescribed for them. In the astronauts' opinion, they could and should be able to perform many standard duties of the flight engineer. This would decrease the workload on the Russian cosmonauts and allow the American astronauts to acquire experience operating the Mir's service systems and to improve the crew interaction system. For this it was necessary to define a specific list of flight procedures which the American astronaut would complete and would be thoroughly trained in on Earth and planned for in the daily operations plan. Such procedures could include: • activating/deactivating the Elektron-V system; • standard operating of the trace contaminants filtering unit (BMII) and the Vozdukh atmospheric purification systems (COA); • receiving radiograms via packet-type communications, etc. This list could be increased as experience is acquired by the American astronauts. In connection with this, the NASA astronauts noted that during the final astronaut training stage for spaceflight it is necessary to increase the number of training sessions with the Crew Commander observing the astronaut's operating and servicing onboard systems so that the Crew Commander can make an objective evaluation of the astronaut's level of professional training. In reality, the astronaut was forced to prove his professional training to complete duties in operating and servicing the complex's onboard service systems to the Russian cosmonauts in flight. 10.7. EVA Operations While Russian cosmonauts were performing EVA, the NASA astronaut was responsible for supporting them inside the Mir complex. Among these duties were: • issuing commands from the Simvol consoles and equipment; • still and video photography of the EVA process; 237 • working with the communications equipment For various reasons, not all of the NASA astronauts received the same training in EVA support. Therefore additional in-flight training was required for several of them (Shannon Lucid, David Wolf, and Andrew Thomas). During the supplemental in-flight training of the astronauts, the following issues were covered: • sequence of interacting with the cosmonauts working in open space (which communications systems are used and the order of use); • knowledge of the list of commands given by the astronaut inside the station (which consoles are used and the sequence for working with these consoles); • off-nominal situations and the actions to recover from them jointly with the other crew members. While completing the MirlNASA program the NASA astronauts, as part of the Russian-American crews, completed three EVAs in open space from the Mir complex. Information on the EVAs is presented in Table 10.1. EVAs in Open Space From the Mir Complex Table 10.1 EVA crew EVA EVA Primary tasks of the EVA date length (hrs) V.V. Tsibliev 04/28/97 4:58 Installation of the optical properties monitor (OPM) on the DM. J. Linenger Installation of the Benton dosimeter on the pressurized-scientific (USA) compartment (HHO) of Kvant-2. (Mir-23) Disassembly of the PIE, MSRE scientific equipment from the special airlock module (IIICO). 2. A.Ya. 09/06/97 6:00 Inspection of the depressurized Spektr module's exterior surface. Solovyev Inspection of the external cooling radiator (HXP) panel. (External M. Foale cooling radiator panel mounting brackets ___ 11 land 113 were (USA) broken, and __o. 110 and 112 were bent. In the area where the VSTI (Mir-24) was opened no visible damage was detected). A special gauge was used to measure the circular gap around the SA-2 drive unit. (The gap was uneven. The gauge moved freely on the unpressurized module (lIFO) side, and did not move on the docking assembly side). Securing the handrail package near the "Miras" equipment on the unpressurized module. Rotating SA-4 and supplemental SA-4. Disassembling the Benton dosimeter from the Kvant-2 instrument- scientific compartment. A.Ya, 01/14- 3:52 Egress from the instrument-scientific module. Inspect the egress Solovyev 15/98 hatch, detect risks of catching on the locks). Take measurements D. Wolf with the space portable spectral reflectometer on the exterior (Mir-24) surface of the pressurized-cargo compartment- 1. Make a TV report near the egress hatch about D. Wolf's first EVA. Close the egress hatch using primary and reserve locks (the special airlock module is not pressurized. Air-locking operations in the instrument-scientific compartment). 238 10.8. InteractionsoftheRussian-AmericanCrewsWiththeMainReal-Time OperationsManagementGroupandtheNASAConsultantGroupatMCC-M Planningoperationsandcontrollingthejoint Russian-Americancrewwas performedbytheMCCMainReal-TimeOperationsManagementGroupandthe NASAConsultantGroup. Inthecrews'opinion,duringtheinitialstageof NASAastronauts'operationson theMir complex there were not adequate interactions between the NASA Consultant Group and the Main Real-Time Operations Management Group which created problems when organizing crew operations. The NASA Consultant Group frequently changed the astronauts' work program and did not make the Main Real-Time Operations Management Group and the Crew Commander aware of the change. This was noted in the postflight reports of the Mir-21 and Mir-22 crew. When organizing the interaction for the international crew, problems were encountered connected, apparently, with other stereotypical activities of American astronauts during flight on the Shuttle. This relates to the peculiarities of transmitting information to the crew, the distribution of responsibilities in maintaining vital functions, and others. There were occasions when changes to the current day's program were made independently and were not agreed to by the Crew Commander. The astronaut was given directions for these changes by the American Consultant Group. After approximately a month of joint flight, these shortcomings were mostly eliminated. This situation was repeated when the NASA Consultant Group at MCC changed. In the future, based on the experience acquired in planning joint operations and in refining the interaction plans between the Main Real-Time Operations Management Group and the NASA Consultant Group, these problems, to a significant degree, will not exist. The crews noted that there was no loss of information at MCC and the crew members sufficiently informed each other about all issues discussed following each communications session. However, both the NASA astronauts and the Russian cosmonauts noted the necessity to improve planning and organizing radio exchanges on the "Crew-Main Real-Time Operations Management Group" channel. It is necessary to continue work to improve equipment and procedures for exchanging information using packet communications and to automate the process as much as possible, ensuring minimal crew participation in completing the procedures; A significant number of radiograms under the NASA program contributed to a heavy load on the "MCC-Mir" channel. Russian cosmonauts in their postflight reports noted that the inadequate monitoring by the Main Real-Time Operations Management Group of the content of these radiograms led to conditions where information was received on board that was not flight critical (personal letters and secondary questions on American experiments) at the same time that radiograms containing operation information competed for time. 239 10.9. ConclusionsandRecommendations 1. DuringthecourseofNASAastronautoperationsaspartof theMir complex crew, the main objectives of the MirlNASA program were completed. Positive experience was gained in extended operations by astronauts on board the space station, in performing scientific research and experiments, interaction of Russian- American crews with each other and with the ground personnel of the Main Real- Time Operations Management Group and the NASA Consultant Group at MCC-M. 2. Mir-Shuttle, Mir-NASA program implementation allowed U.S. astronauts and Russian cosmonauts to acquire experience of joint operation onboard the Mir and the Space Shuttle which will be further used on the ISS. 3. Cosmonaut and astronaut interaction has been developed during utilization of the Mir onboard systems including contingency situations. 4. Experience has been acquired on how to jointly implement scientific programs including contingency operation of scientific equipment. Cosmonaut and astronaut functions during the execution of the scientific program have been updated. 5. Development and tests of Russian crew operation support means on board the Mir have been continued and the American COSS (crew on-orbit support system) has been tested. 6. The U.S. inventory control system which is planned to be used on ISS has been further developed. 7. We learned from our joint operation experience that, to ensure quality and efficient operation on orbit, a deeper knowledge of the operational language is needed. 8. The experience acquired during implementation of the Mir/NASA program will be useful when training and completing spaceflights under the ISS program. 240 Mir cosmonauts Budarin and Solovyev 241 NASA 2 astronaut Shannon Lucid 242 Section 11 - Science Program Authors: Victor Dmitriyevich Blagov, Deputy Co-Chair, Flight Operations and Systems Integration Working Group (WG) (Operations) Oleg Nikolayevich Lebedev, Co-Chair, Mission Science WG (MSWG) John Uri, Co-Chair, MSWG Tonya Sivils, MSWG 243 11.1 Introduction 11.1.1 Rules and Responsibilities 11.1.1 •1 U.S. and Russian The relationship between the parties for the purposes of research program implementation was governed by US/R-001. The primary document describing the scope of the team's work within each increment was the Increment Payloads Requirements Document (IPRD) developed by the MSWG-4. Based on the above documents the U.S. party undertook: to develop the flight, training, and test hardware as well as the relevant operating and test documents; to formulate the program and the requirements as to the performance of each of the experiments; to ensure hardware testing; to develop drawings and electrical diagrams; to train the crew at NASA centers; to develop the experiment procedures; to secure concurrence as to the flight data files; to participate in the testing of the hardware in Russia; to participate in the experiment planning; to deliver the hardware to the station aboard the Orbiter. The Russian party provided for: a feasibility assessment of the proposed program; the concurrence of hardware documents; hardware integration to the station systems; participation in acceptance testing (AT) and the incoming inspection of the hardware in the United States; the logistics of the AT and incoming inspection in Russia; the development of the flight data files; crew training in Russia; the collection of pre- and postflight data in Russia; experiment planning and in-flight implementation; data acquisition aboard and transmission from the station; the delivery of the hardware to the station using the Progress and Soyuz vehicles. The schedules for the data exchange and hardware deliveries were defined in Document US/R-002. 244 TheRussianparty'sprimarytaskwastoevaluatethesafetyof theU.S. hardwarewith regardto itsutilizationaboardtheMir station. Considering the commercial nature of the project, Russian experts were not involved in setting experiment objectives, experiment result analysis, or validity evaluations except as regards experiments to assess Mir parameters and those where Russian researchers were invited to participate by the U.S. party. In addition, Russian experts performed pre- and postflight data collection in Russia. 11.1.1.2 WG-4 and WG-6 Science program activities were supported by two WGs: - WG-4: Mission Science WG; - WG-6; Mir Operations and Integration WG. WG-4 concentrated on developing the science program and processing the results while WG-6 dealt with developing the hardware, the documentation, crew training, hardware testing and integration on board the station, in-flight research, and data acquisition. Normally, all issues were discussed at joint team meetings held 4 times a year. 11.1.2 Resources An extensive research program has been implemented in the course of 6 missions performed under Contract NAS 15-10110. To support the program the Russian party was to allocate considerable resources to accommodate the mass of U.S. cargoes (up to 2, 360 kg aboard the station at any one time), the power requirement (up to 2 kW average per day), and crew time (up to 70% of the U.S. astronaut's duty time and 30% of the Russian cosmonaut' s duty time). The actual program proposed by the U.S. party required less power (up to an average of 1.5 kW) and cosmonaut time (up to 17%) but exceeded the agreed-to mass limitations. In addition, the Russian party provided for the delivery of U.S. cargoes by Soyuz and Progress vehicles, which had not been a contract provision. 245 At theprogramdevelopmentandimplementationstagesthepartiesworked togetherin thespiritof mutualunderstandingwithoutresortingtoundue formality,therebypromotingoverallactivitysuccess. 11.1.3 ProgramOverview Onthewholetheprogramhasbeencompleted,althoughtherewasa shortfallwithregardtoNASA-5becauseof theaccidentontheSpektr module,postponementof NASA-6experiments,andcancellationof a numberof sessionsfor medicalreasons.Nonetheless,resultshavebeen obtainedin virtuallyall theplannedexperiments. A numberof stepstakenbythepartiesto achieveaconsensusonissuesof experimentsetupandimplementationaboardaspacevehiclewere conducivetoprogramcompletion. It wasearlyin thecourseof flightsundertheMir-Shuttle program that the U.S. party recognized that it was impossible to run a rigid preplanned timeline to cover the entire duration of a long spaceflight and adopted the Russian method of design (preflight) and real-time (in-flight) planning. This approach allowed the introduction of new sessions for the purposes of hardware repairs and recovery, adjustment of experiment procedures, change in operation times, etc. In its own turn because of time constraints, the Russian party agreed to depart from the principle of having experiment procedures developed by Russian experts, which saved some time but reduced the scope of documentation monitoring by principal investigators. Russian researchers that had an active role in experiment preparation and result assessment have obtained new data in space medicine, biology, and developed a number of systems to evaluate the station's operating parameters. 11.2 MissionScience Working Group (WG-4) 11.2.1 WG-4 History The Mission Science Working Group (MSWG) was established in July 1992 as WG-4 in the overall joint Shuttle/Mir WG structure, following the U.S.-Russian agreement for expanded cooperation in human spaceflight. The initial agreement called for the 246 flight ofaRussiancosmonautaboardtheU.S.SpaceShuttle,theflight of a U.S. astronaut aboard the Russian Space Station Mir, and the docking of the U.S. Space Shuttle with the Russian Space Station Mir. WG-4 was tasked to develop a cooperative science program, primarily in the Life Sciences, as part of these joint missions. The scope of the joint activities was expanded in November 1993 with the addition of four more long- duration flights of U.S. astronauts aboard Mir and up to nine additional Shuttle dockings with Mir. The U.S. would also provide life and microgravity science hardware to be installed in the Spektr and Priroda modules. The research program was expanded to include other science disciplines. In December 1995, two additional long-duration missions of U.S. astronauts aboard Mir were agreed to. WG-4 was given responsibility for developing and managing the science requirements of this expanded research program. 11.2.2 WG-4 Responsibilities The MSWG had the primary overall responsibility for managing the research requirements in the Phase 1 program. Throughout preflight planning, in-flight operations, and postflight closeout, the MSWG was the intermediary interface between the experiment disciplines representing the requirements of the Principal Investigators (PIs) and the various experiment implementation organizations and processes. These included NASA Headquarters and the Program Office Management; Configuration Control Boards; the Training, Integration, and Operations groups; and the science discipline groups made up of payload developers. During the Phase 1 program, approximately 150 PIs were represented by seven research disciplines: Advanced Technology, Earth Sciences, Fundamental Biology, Human Life Science, International Space Station (ISS) Risk Mitigation, Microgravity, and Space Sciences. (See Attachment 11.2 for the list of PIs and associated investigations.) As part of this process, the MSWG was responsible for ensuring science requirements are clearly defined and documented for implementation. This involved the development and management of requirements documents, such as the jointly agreed IPRD used during Phase 1B and the STS-71/Spacelab-Mir Mission Science Requirements Document, a U.S.- only document. Due to frequent changes in mission resource allocations and operational constraints, these documents were updated as appropriate through configuration controlled changes to the baselined science requirements. Mission Science had the responsibility to resolve any resource conflicts among the various disciplines and investigations, and during flight operations to actively participate in the replanning process. 247 TheMSWGwasalsoinvolvedin variousWGmeetingsandflight readinessactivities.Periodicjoint meetingswiththeinvestigatorteams, includingasappropriate,internationalpartnersin themissionresearch, wereheldto reviewthesciencerequirementsandtheirproposed implementationasdefinedin operationsproducts,addressmissioncritical issues,andestablishworkingprotocols.At thestartof eachmission, readinessreviewswereheldtodiscussandresolveanyscienceor operationsproblemsthatwouldpotentiallydelayorimpactthesuccessof themission. Insupportof missionpreparationandimplementation,theMSWGalso developedinformationalpackagesforreleasetothepublicthroughthe NASAPublicAffairsOffice,pressbriefings,brochures,websites,and symposia. After flight,MissionSciencehadtheresponsibilityfor assessingthe operationalandsciencesuccessofeachmissionandensuringthatthePIs reportedontheresultsof theexperiments.Thescienceresultswere trackedthroughdirectreportingfromthePIs,atsciencesymposiaand throughtrackingthePIs'publicationsandpublicpresentations. 11.2.3 WG-4StructuresandProcesses Throughouteachincrement,andacrossthePhase1program,Mission SciencecoordinatedwiththeDisciplineLeadstoensuresuccessful implementationof theresearchobjectivesof thePhase1programandthe objectivesof eachindividualPI. Foreachincrement,asetof sciencerequirementswereenteredintoa computerizeddatabase,thePayloadIntegrationPlanningSystem(PIPS), andestablishedthroughbaseliningof its product,theIPRD,attheMir Operations and Integration Working Group (MOIWG) configuration control board. The U.S. requirements were then reviewed with Russian counterparts of both MSWG and MOIWG to assure that they were within resource constraints. Periodic revisions were distributed based on updates agreed upon during these joint meetings. The Final IPRD, usually released three months prior to the start of each increment, was then used as the guiding document for operations planning and real-time implementation. 248 TheMOIWGalsousedthePIPSdatabaseforhardwaremanagementand usedtheIPRDin developingoperationsproductsformission implementation.WhereastheMOIWGhadincrementspecificteams dedicatedtopremissionplanning,real-timeoperations,andpostmission closeout,theMSWGmaintainedacoreteamthatworkedthroughoutall aspectsof thePhase1researchprogram,bothatthemanagementand researchdisciplinelevel.MissionSciencecoordinatedwith theMOIWG andsupportedmissionimplementationfunctionsaspartof theHouston MissionControlCenter(MCC-H)PayloadOperationsSupportArea (POSA)andtheMir Operations Support Team (MOST) or U.S. Consultants Group in the TsUP (Russian Mission Control Center) in Korolyov. During real-time science implementation, replan requests (RR), generated by the discipline teams or operations implementation members, were written to document requested changes. Specialists in the POSA, composed of a science and operations team, evaluated the RRs for implementation feasibility. If these changes were outside the scope of the requirements documented in the Final IPRD, the RR was attached to a change request for disposition through the MOIWG configuration control board. The PIPS database was updated with approved change requests throughout the course of the mission. Approved changes were sent over to the TsUP and negotiated with the Russian side as changes to the Russian Final IPRD. Once successfully negotiated, the Form 24 (Russian Timeline) was updated with the requested inputs. At the end of the mission, the Final IPRD represented what was planned for implementation. The RR attachments plus the Final IPRD represented what was actually implemented. 11.2.4 Results Processing The goal of work in research of the Mir-NASA Project scientific program was to perform operations to support and supply the American scientific research of the Mir-NASA Project. The operational objectives were: 1. A scientific methodological examination of American research, including biomedical ethics issues. 2. Ground preparation and certification of equipment and hardware for flight research. 3. Pre- and postflight data collection as part of the biomedical research program. 4. Training and ground following of the flight portion of experiments. 5. Participation in the preparation and performance of fundamental biological research. 6. Supporting ground following of experiments by Russian specialists at MCC. 249 In contrasttothepreviousstageof Russian-Americanscientific cooperationundertheMir-Shuttle program, the microgravity, biomedical, and fundamental biological research programs included suggestions which had been selected by an independent U.S. peer review panel, and the Russian side became familiar with them after the selection. The American proposals which had passed a scientific review were presented to the Russian side in the form of a list of experiments and brief information about the research process, the equipment used, and crew time requirements. During the course of discussions between the Russian and American specialists, the feasibility of conducting the experiments in space was evaluated and the possibilities for pre- and postflight examinations of Russian cosmonauts and American astronauts were agreed to. The Russian specialists suggested combining a number of research projects into a single procedure, which would allow resources and time to be saved and would simplify crew member training. As a result of the discussions, the Russian and American sides came to the agreement that for each of the experiments co-executors would be appointed from the Russian side who would ensure following the experiments in all stages of their preparation and implementation. The co- executors would integrate the requirements of the Russian national science program with the American research to avoid duplication and obtain valid scientific results which might be used by the partners in accordance with the special agreements for each separately performed experiment. The joint work of the Russian and American scientists frequently led to significant modification of the American proposals. It made the proposal more realistic and adaptable to crew activity conditions during extended spaceflight. On a number of the proposals, the American scientists backed away from their initial requirements or simplified them. The Russian co-executors prepared and presented materials for the Russian Academy of Sciences Biomedical Ethics Commission. Members of the Commission performed a great deal of preliminary work in standardizing the techniques for evaluating the risk of conducting the research with the help of people from the American Biomedical Ethics Commission. A single form of informed consent for performing research involving humans was developed and agreed to, which is used when preparing materials for cosmonauts of both sides. As a result of the commission's work, biomedical and fundamental biological research programs for the Mir- NASA project missions were approved. The results of the agreements were outlined in the IPRD, which was really almost the implementation plan for the science documents. The IPRD addressed the issues of training astronauts and cosmonauts, performing pre- and postflight sessions, and the plan for transferring hardware from the Shuttle to Mir and returning hardware and experiments materials. Flight sessions were also addressed in the IPRD. 25O TheRussianspecialiststookpartin trainingtheRussiancrewmembers duringthefamiliarizationsessionsatJohnsonSpaceCenter(JSC),aswell asatStarCity. TheRussianspecialiststookpartin preparingthe proceduresforperformingtheexperiment,whichweretheprototypefor thedocumentationfor teachingcosmonautsandimplementingthe experimentsduringflight. Participationin preparingtheflight datafiles alsoincluded: • writinginstructionsforoperating hardware; • making corrections to preliminary versions of the flight data files; • confirming the flight-ready version of the flight data files. Long-term and detailed planning of the research took place with the participation of the Russian specialists who were responsible for performing individual experiments and the members of the MCC medical group. In addition, they prepared radiograms on experiment procedures, held radio conversations with the crew before and during the experiment, and held consultations on repairing hardware (if necessary). At this stage of performing the research, the Russian specialists interacted with the American specialists in the Consulting Group at MCC. During this interaction, the procedures for performing the experiments were refined and the programs were corrected if necessary. Reasons for decreasing the quantity of research while it was being performed were: • hardware malfunctions; • medical restrictions; • Spektr module depressurization; • rescheduling of Mir service operations. Problems that arose were regularly discussed in teleconferences between the American and Russian specialists, with management and leading project specialists participating. The involvement of Russian specialists in the pre- and postflight observations in various experiments was not uniform, as some of them participated in the materials analysis and processing of results obtained. The Russian scientists took part in gathering background data. In a number of cases they fulfilled service functions, and in other experiments they took on the role of co-executors, taking part in processing and analyzing data obtained. The observations of Russian cosmonauts were called for by experiments with identical procedures in the American and Russian science programs, and were performed by Russian specialists per the agreed-upon protocols. 251 ThedegreeofparticipationbyRussianscientistswasdeterminedby preliminaryagreementsreachedatmeetingsof theJointWorkingGroup. Thepartnersexchangeddataontheresearchin accordancewith agreementsreachedatmeetingsof RussianandAmericanspecialists. Theproblemswhicharoseduringthecourseof theexperimentswere resolvedquicklybythescientistswith thecooperationof theMCC ConsultingGroupandRussianspecialistsresponsiblefor planning. 11.2.5 WG-4Accomplishments Thechallengestothesuccessfulcompletionof thePhase1research programduringitsrelativelybriefhistoryaretoonumerousto listin this report.Amongafewmajoronesare:thecompresseddevelopment schedule;thetwosideslearningtoworktogether;overcominglanguage barriers;theU.S.teamlearningthe"culture"of long-durationspaceflight; andreplanningof theresearchprogramin thefaceof significantandever- changingoperationalconstraints.Withtherepresentationof accomplishmentslistedin thissection,it isclearthatthePhase1research programhasovercomethesechallenges,yieldingawealthof new informationand,asalwaysin scientificendeavors,raisingmanynew questions.It will beseveralmoreyearsbeforethefull scopeof whatwas accomplishedandlearnedcanbefully appreciated. The10long-durationMir missions and 7 long-duration NASA missions, as well as the 9 Shuttle-Mir docking Shuttle missions, resulted in a wealth of station research experience, samples, data, and science return for the approximately 100 unique Mir-based investigations, representing approximately 150 investigators, that were conducted during the NASA- Mir Research Program. Seven U.S. astronauts and 17 Russian cosmonauts, three of whom were involved in two Phase 1 missions, participated in the long-duration research program. The actual number of investigations per research discipline is supplied in Table 11.1, some of which were flown over multiple increments. 252 Number of Long-Duration Investigations per Discipline Table 11.1 Research Discipline Research Increment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Advanced Technology 1 2 1 3 Earth Sciences 2 2 2 3 3 3 Fundamental Biology 1 3 2 4 5 1 Human Life Sciences 26 11 12 8 6 5 6 ISS Risk Mitigation 5 7 8 7 6 2 Microgravity 1 12 10 11 9 9 8 Space Sciences 2 2 2 Total Investigations 28 26 37 35 30 25 22 Reference Attach. 11.3 for the table of investigations flown on each Phase 1 increment. The Mir station provided many U.S. investigators, whose previous experiences included only short-duration Shuttle missions, their first experience with a long- duration platform as a test bed for facilities and experiment protocols planned for use on ISS. International participation in the Phase 1 research program included investigators from the United States, Russia, Canada, the United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, France, and Hungary. Advanced Technology investigators used the weightless environment of Mir to study basic physical processes and generate better quality and new alloys, with multiple industrial and scientific applications. The three-year near-continuous observations of Earth phenomena by trained crew members has added tens of thousands of images to the exciting database of Earth imagery and to researchers' understanding of long-term changes, both ephemeral natural and human induced, and for the first time documented global baseline conditions leading up to and through the 1997 E1 Nifio. Documentation during this timeframe on Mir demonstrated for the first time the northwestward drift of the South Atlantic Anomaly through comparison between Skylab and Mir data. Fundamental Biology investigations yielded highly successful plant growth experiments resulting in the most biomass ever grown in space and the first plants grown from seeds developed entirely in space. 253 TheHumanLife Sciencesstudyof crewmembersbefore,during,andafter long-durationflighthasledtoabetterunderstandingof thephysiologicaland psychologicaleffectsof long-durationspaceflight.TheNASA-Mirprogram hasseenthedocumentationof space-inducedchangesin humanbodysystems suchastheimmunesystem,cardiacfunctions,circadianrhythms,renal functions,andboneandmineralmetabolism. Mir operations and risk mitigation experiments have contributed significantly to our understanding of long-duration spaceflight and resulted in modifications to ISS planning, design, and operations. The structural dynamics and micrometeoroid impact experiments are two examples of demonstrations of crew and vehicle microgravity disturbances and interactions as well as how materials and structures respond to long exposures to the low Earth orbit environment. Microgravity discipline supported science has extended the duration of tissue culture experiments from 14 days to 4 months in orbit developing 3- dimensional tissue cultures. Tissue constructs such as these are difficult to generate on Earth and have great potential for applications in orthopedic and cosmetic surgery. In addition, new techniques for growing protein crystals in space have been established with qualitative and quantitative improvements over ground-based activities. Analyses of these high-quality crystals are leading to advances in pharmacology and molecular biology. The discovery of extraterrestrial particulates in the aerogels contained in the Space Sciences experiment collector trays clearly demonstrates that many cosmic dust particles can be returned to Earth for physical and chemical analysis. Following each Phase 1 mission, each U.S. PI was required to submit to Mission Science a postflight Operational Accomplishments Report (R+30 days), a Preliminary Research Report (R+180 days), and a Final Research Report (R+I year), outlining their research status and preliminary conclusions. To date, a total of 237 postflight research reports have been received, archived, and distributed by Mission Science. Attachment 11.4 contains the table of contents for each document published to date of these reports. Also, many PIs have published their Phase 1 research findings in peer-reviewed publications, and these are listed in Attachment 11.5. 254 TheMSWGhasalsoorganizedResearchResultsSymposiain which investigatorshaveparticipatedbysharingdatabetweensimilarresearchareas andpresentationof resultstodate.Thesetypesof forumshavesuppliedNASA management,thePhase1crewmembers,andtheparticipantsof thePhase1 researchprogramwiththeresultsandsuccessesof thenumerousexperiments conductedduringtheprogram.Thefirst symposium,heldatJSCin August 1997,focusedprimarilyonexperimentsfromtheNASA-2andNASA-3 missions.Thesecondmeeting,heldin April 1998atAmesResearchCenter, focusedmainlyontheNASA-4and-5missions.A thirdsymposiumtargeted forNovember1998,atMarshallSpaceFlightCenter,will closeoutthose experimentsconductedthroughouttheprogramandwill focusontheNASA-6 and-7missions.Twosymposiaproceedingspackages,acompilationof 82Phase1experimentpresentations,havebeendistributedandthetableof contentsof thesecanbefoundin Attachment11.6. 11.2.6 LessonsLearned The10mostimportantlessonslearnedfromthePhase1 Research Program are listed below. Clearly, many if not all will have application in the successful conduct of the research program on ISS. 1. Develop and implement a realistic schedule from experiment solicitation to flight. The 2-year experiment solicitation-to-flight schedule for Phase 1 was inadequate to ensure proper definition and implementation of all selected experiments without significant challenges. The lack of early definition of the research had multiple impacts to proper implementation of the experiments. 2. Plan for a realistic complement of experiments for each long-duration mission to achieve specific scientific objectives. Provide a narrower focus for each increment and plan the research program accordingly (quality vs. quantity). 3. Maintain clear distinction between science requirements (PI- generated) and science operations (guided by operational constraints). Science "requirements" were often changed to accommodate operational constraints; in truth, the requirements did not change, only their implementation. 4. Ensure full coordination between experiments and facilities, hardware and software interfaces, in ground testing, training, etc. There were instances where incompatibilities were uncovered only in flight; this was usually due to inadequate time for preflight preparation. 255 5. Ensure that training is performed in full-up configuration, with all experiment components. There were instances where the first time a crew member did an end-to-end experiment session was on orbit. 6. In scheduling science activities, all overhead must be accounted for. Performing a science session usually requires additional time that initially was not accounted for, potentially leading to crew overwork. These ancillary activities include, but are not limited to, on-orbit refresher training; search for and identification of all required hardware items; evolving crew familiarity with the experiment; experiment setup; experiment stow. 7. Develop a single hardware manifest. There were multiple manifests maintained by different organizations, with different purposes and authorities, often leading to confusion. 8. Develop a single hardware/safety documentation system for all payload carriers. Hardware developers were often swamped in submitting essentially the same information to different organizations in different formats. 9. With limited voice communication with the crew, rely more on E- mail. In many cases, use of E-mail allows for more thorough communication between the crew member and the ground support team. 10. Understand the cultural differences between short-duration and long-duration flight and their interactions. These are in the areas of training, operations, manifesting, etc. Many of these factors are not unique to Mir, but are a reflection of operating in a long- duration environment, regardless of the specific platform. 1 I. During selection of experiment, the management team should pay special attention to reviewing of biomedical studies to maximize crew member acceptability. 11.2.7 WG-4 Summary The Phase 1 Research Program offered many U.S. investigators their first opportunity to conduct research in a long-duration environment. This invaluable experience gained not only by the investigators but also by the U.S. and Russian ground support teams, in addition to the actual scientific return from the program, will be a tremendous aid in conducting similar research on ISS. From a research perspective, Phase 1 was clearly a worthwhile endeavor. 256 List of Phase 1 Principal Investigators and Their Experiments Attach. 11.2 Phase 1A Metabolic Research: U.S. Investilmtorl's) Russian Investigator(s) Fluid and Electrolyte Homeostasis and its Regulation Helen Lane, Ph.D. Anatoly Grigoriev, M.D. Dynamics of Calcium Metabolism and Bone Tissue Helen Lane, Ph.D. V. Ogonov, M.D., Ph.D. Irina Popova, Ph.D. Renal Stone Risk Assessment Peggy Whitson, Ph.D. German Arzamozov, M.D. Sergey Kreavoy, M.D. Metabolic Response to Exercise Helen Lane, Ph.D. Irina Popova, Ph.D. Metabolism of Red Blood Cells Helen Lane, Ph.D. Svetlana Ivanova, Ph.D. Red Blood Cell Mass and Survival Helen Lane, Ph.D. Svetlana Ivanova, Ph.D. Physiologic Alterations and Pharmacokinetic Changes During Spaceflight Lakshmi Putcha, Ph.D. I. Goncharov, Ph.D. Humoral Immunity Clarence Sams, Ph.D. Irina Konstantinova, M.D. Viral Reactivation Duane Pierson, Ph.D. Irina Konstantinova, M.D. Peripheral Mononuclear Cells Clarence Sams, Ph.D. Irina Konstantinova, M.D. Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Research: Studies on Orthostatic Tolerance With the Use of LBNP John Charles, Ph.D. Valeriy Mikhaylov, M.D. Studies of Mechanisms Underlying Orthostatic Intolerance Using Ambulatory Monitoring Baroflex Testing Janice Yelle, M.S. Valeriy Mikhaylov, M.D. and Valsalva Maneuver John Charles, Ph.D. Maximal Aerobic Capacity Using Graded Bicycle Ergometry Steven Siconolfi, Ph.D. Valeriy Mikhaylov, M.D. Suzanne Fortney, Ph.D. Alexander Kotov, M.D. Evaluation of Thermoregulation During Spaceflight Suzanne Fortney, Ph.D. Valeriy Mikhaylov, M.D. Physiological Response During Descent of Space Shuttle John Charles, Ph.D. Valeriy Mikhaylov, M.D. Neuroseusory Research: Evaluation of Skeletal Muscle Performance & Characteristics Steven Siconolfi, Ph.D. Inessa Kozlovskaya, M.D. John McCarthy, Ph.D. Yury Koryak, Ph.D. N.M. Kharitonov, Ph.D. Morphological, Histochemical & Ultrastructural Characteristics of Skeletal Muscle Daniel Feeback, Ph.D. Boris Shenkman, Ph.D. Eye-Head Coordination During Target Acquisition M. Reschke, Ph.D. I. Kozlovskaya, M.D. J. Bloomberg, Ph.D. L. Komilova, M.D. W. Paloski, Ph.D. V. Barmin, M.D. A. Sokolov, M.D. B. Babayev, M.D. Posture and Locomotion J. Bloomberg, Ph.D. I. Kozlovskaya, M.D. W. Paloski, Ph.D. A. Voronov, Ph.D. M. Reschke, Ph.D. I. Tchekirda, M.D. D. Harm, Ph.D. M. Borisov Hygiene, Sanitation, and Radiation Research: Microbiology Duane L. Pierson, Ph.D. Natalia Novokova, Ph.D. Richard Sauer, P.E. Vladimir Skuratov, M.D. In-Flight Radiation Measurements G.D. Badwhar, Ph.D. Vladislav Petrov, Ph.D. Measurement of Cytogenetic Effects of Space Radiation T.C. Yang, Ph.D. B. Fedorenko, Ph.D. Trace Chemical Contamination John James, Ph.D. L. Mukhamedieva, M.D. Richard Sauer, P.E. Yuri Sinyak, Ph.D. 257 List of Phase 1 Principal Investigators and Their Experiments (continued) Phase 1A continued Behavior and Performance Research: The Effectiveness of Manual Control During Simulation Deborah L. Harm, Ph.D. V.P. Salnitskiy, Ph.D. of Flight Tasks (PILOT) Fundamental Biology Research: U.S. Investigators Russian lnvesti2ator Incubator Biospeciman Sharing Program T.S. Guryeva, Ph.D. Olga Dadasheva, Ph.D. Greenhouse Frank Salisbury, Ph.D. M. A. Levinskikh, Ph.D. Gail Bingham, Ph.D. Microgravity Research: Space Acceleration Measurement System (SAMS) Richard DeLombard S. Ryaboukha, Ph.D. Protein Crystallization Methods Stan Koszelac, Ph.D. O. Mitichkin, Ph.D. Alexander Malkin, Ph.D. Phase 1B Advanced Technology: U.S. Investigator(s) Russian Investigator(s) Optizone Liquid Phase Sintering James Smith, Ph.D. Materials in Devices and Superconductors Stephanie Wise Yuri Grigorashvili Ruth Amundsen Svyatoslav Volkov Eugene Vasilyev Vladimir Koshelev Commercial Protein Crystal Growth Larry DeLucas Commercial Generic Bioprocessing Apparatus Louis Stodieck Liquid Motion Experiment Richard Knoll ASTROCULTURE •Raymond Bula X-Ray Detector Test Larry DeLucas Earth Sciences: Calibration & Validation of Priroda Microwave Sensors James Shiue, Ph.D. Neon Armand, Ph.D. Comparison of Atmospheric Chemistry Sensors on Jack Kaye Priroda and American Satellites Regional & Temperature Variability of Primary Productivity F.E. Muller-Karger in Ocean Shelf Waters O. Kopelevich Test Site Monitoring & Visual Earth Observations Kamlesh Lulla, Ph.D. Lev Desinov, Ph.D. Cynthia Evans, Ph.D. Validation of Biosphere-Atmosphere Interchange Model A. W. England for Northern Prairies Anatoly Shutko Validation of Priroda Rain Observations Otto Thiele Fundamental Biology: Incubator-Integrated Quail Experiments on Mir Gary W. Conrad, Ph.D. Olga Dadasheva, Ph.D. Cesar D. Fermin, Ph.D. Tamara Gurieva, Ph.D. Stephen B. Doty, Ph.D. Bernd Fritzsch, Ph.D. Patricia Y. Hester, Ph.D. Peter I. Lelkes, Ph.D. Page A. W. Anderson, M.D Bernard C. Wentworth, Ph.D. Toru Shimizu, Ph.D. 258 List of Phase 1 Principal Investigators and Their Experiments (continued) Phase 1B continued Fundamental Biology Continued: U.S. Investigators Russian Investigators Environmental Radiation Measurements Eugene Benton, Ph.D. Greenhouse-Integrated Plant Experiment Frank Salisbury, Ph.D. M. Levinskikh, Ph.D. Gail Bingham, Ph.D. John Carman, Ph.D. William Campbell, Ph.D. David Bubenheim, Ph.D. Boris Yendler, Ph.D. Effective Dose Measurements Sandor Derne. Ph.D. Yuri Akatov Cellular Mechanisms of Spaceflight Specific to Plants Abraham. D. Krikorian Standard Interface Glovebox Paul D. Savage Developmental Analysis of Seeds Grown on Mir Mary Musgrave, Ph.D. Margartia Levinskikh Effects of Gravity on Insect Circadian Rhythmicity T. Hoban-Higgins, Ph.D. Alexei Alpatov Active Dosimetry of Charged Particles Jobst Ulrich Schott Human Life Sciences: Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds on Mir Peter Palmer. Ph.D. Valentina Savina, M.D. Anticipatory Postural Activity Jacob Bloomberg, Ph.D. Inessa Kozlovskaya, M.D. Assessment of Humoral Immune Function Clarence Sams, Ph.D. A. T. Lesnyak Bone Mineral Loss & Recovery Linda Shackelford, M.D. V. Oganov, M.D., Ph.D. Collecting Mir Source & Reclaimed Waters Richard L. Sauer, P.E. Yuri Sinyak, Ph.D. Crew Member & Crew-Ground Interactions Nick A. Kanas, Ph.D. Vyacheslav Salnitskiy Evaluation of Skeletal Muscle Performance & Characteristics S. F. Siconolfi, Ph.D. Inessa Kozlovskaya, M.D. Gas Analyzer System Metabolic Analysis Physiology Floyd Booker Magnetic Resonance Imaging After Exposure to Microgravity Adrian LeBlanc, Ph.D. Inessa Kozlovskaya, M.D. Microbiological Interaction in the Mir Space Environment George M. Weinstock A. Viktorov, Ph.D. Protein Metabolism T. Peter Stein, Ph.D. Irina Larina, Ph.D. Renal Stone Risk Assessment Peggy Whitson, Ph.D. Sergey Kreavoy, M.D. German Arzamazov, M.D. Renal Stone Risk Assessment: Dried Urine Chemistry Peggy Whitson, Ph.D. Sergey Kreavoy, M.D. Sleep Investigations Allan Hobson, M.D. Irina Ponomareva, M.D. Timothy H. Monk, Ph.D. Harvey Moldofsky, M.D. Effects of Long-Duration Spaceflight on Eye, Head, & Jacob Bloomberg, Ph.D. Inessa Kozlovskaya, M.D. Trunk Coordination During Locomotion Effects of Spaceflight on Gaze Control Mill Reschke, Ph.D. Inessa Kozlovskaya, M.D. Frames of Reference for Sensorimotor Transformation Alan Berthoz, Ph.D. Victor Gurfinkel Cardiovascular Investigations C. Gunnar Blomqvist. M.D. Dwain Eckberg, M.D. International Space Station Risk Mitigation: Enhanced Dynamic Load Sensors on Mir Sherwin Beck Mir Audible Noise Measurement C. Parsons Mir Electric Field Characterization Phong Ngo Mir Environmental Effects payload Buck Gay Mir Wireless Network Yuri Gawdiak Orbital Debris Collector Freidrich Horz Passive Optical Sample Assembly #1 and #2 G. Pippin Jim Zwiener Polish Plate Micrometeoroid Debris Collector W. Kinard 259 List of Phase 1 Principal Investigators and Their Experiments (continued) Phase 1B Continued International Space Station Continued: U.S. Investigators Russian Investigators Shuttle/Mir Alignment Stability Experiment Russel Yates S. Shitov, Ph.D. Water Microbiological Monitor Duane L. Pierson, Ph.D. Mir Structural Dynamics Experiment Hyoung-Man Kim, Ph.D. Vyacheslav Mezhin Optical Properties Monitor Don Wilkes S. Naumov Sergey Demidov Cosmic Radiation and Effects Activation Monitor Peter Truscott Test of PCS Hardware Rod Lofton Space Portable Spectroreflectometer Ralph Carruth Stanislov Naumov, Ph.D. Radiation Monitoring Equipment Mike Golightly Vladislav Petrov Francis Afinidad Microgravity: Biotechnology System Facility Operations Steve Gonda, Ph.D. Binary Colloidal Alloy Test David A. Weitz, Ph.D. Cartilage in Space Lisa Freed, M.D., Ph.D. Steve Gonda, Ph.D. Biotechnology Diagnostic Experiment Steve Gonda, Ph.D. Biotechnology Co-Culture Elliot Levine, Ph.D. Thomas Goodwin Biochemistry of 3D Tissue Engineering Timothy Hammond, Ph.D. Peter Lelkes, Ph.D. Candle Flame in Microgravity Dan Deitrich Forced Flow Flamespread Test Kurt Sacksteder. Ph.D. Opposed Flow Flamespread on Cylindrical Surfaces Robert A. Altenkirch Interface Configuration Experiment Mark Weislogel Liquid Metal Diffusion Franz Rosenberger Mechanics of Granular Materials Stein Sture, Ph.D. Nicholas Costes, Ph.D. Microgravity Glovebox Facility Operations Don Reiss, Ph.D. Angular Liquid Bridge Experiment Paul Concus, Ph.D. Microgravity Isolation Mount Facility Operations Bjarni Trygvasson, Ph.D. Queen's University Experiment in Liquid Diffusion Reginald Smith, Ph.D. Passive Accelerometer System Iwan Alexander, Ph.D. Protein Crystal Growth GN2 Experiment Alexander McPherson, Ph.D. Stan Koszelak, Ph.D. Diffusion Controlled Crystallization Apparatus Dan Carter, Ph.D. Space Acceleration Measurement System Richard DeLombard Stanislav Ryaboukha Technological Evaluation of Microgravity Isolation Mount (MIM) Jeff Allen Colloidal Gelation David Weitz, Ph.D. Canadian Protein Crystallization Experiment Phillip Gregory Interferometer Protein Crystal Growth Alexander McPherson, Ph.D. Space Sciences: Mir Sample Return Peter Tsou, Ph.D. Particle Impact Experiment Carl Maag, Ph.D. 260 Attachment 11.3: Table of Phase 1 Investigations per Mission Increment Phase 1A Metabolic Research: Mir 18/NASA 1 STS-71 Mir 19 Fluid and Electrolyte Homeostasis and its Regulation X X Dynamics of Calcium Metabolism and Bone Tissue X X Renal Stone Risk Assessment X X Metabolic Response to Exercise X Metabolism of Red Blood Cells X Red Blood Cell Mass and Survival X Physiologic Alterations and Pharmacokinetic Changes During Spaceflight X Humoral Immunity X X Viral Reactivation X Peripheral Mononuclear Cells X Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Research: Studies on Orthostatic Tolerance With the Use of LBNP X X Studies of Mechanisms Underlying Orthostatic Intolerance Using X Ambulatory Monitoring Baroflex Testing and Valsalva Maneuver X X Maximal Aerobic Capacity Using Graded Bicycle Ergometry X X Evaluation of Thermoregulation During Spaceflight X Physiological Response During Descent of Space Shuttle X Neurosensory Research: Evaluation of Skeletal Muscle Performance and Characteristics X X Morphological, Histochemical & Ultrastructural Characteristics of Skeletal Muscle X X Eye-Head Coordination During Target Acquisition X X X Posture and Locomotion X X Hygiene, Sanitation, and Radiation Research: X Microbiology X X In-flight Radiation Measurements X X X Measurement of Cytogenetic Effects of Space Radiation X Trace Chemical Contamination X X X Behavior and Performance Research: The Effectiveness of Manual Control During Simulation of Flight Tasks (PILOT) X Fundamental Biology Research: Incubator X X Greenhouse X Microgravity Research Space Acceleration Measurement System (SAMS) X Protein Crystallization Methods X X 261 Attachment 11.3: Table of Phase 1 Investigations per Mission Increment (continued) Phase 1B Research Increment Advanced Technology: 2 3 4 5 6 7 Optizone Liquid Phase Sintering X X Materials in Devices as Superconductors X Commercial Protein Crystal Growth X Commercial Generic Bioprocessing Apparatus X X Liquid Motion Experiment X ASTROCULTURE X X-Ray Detector Test X Earth Sciences: Calibration & Validation of Priroda Microwave Sensors X* X* X* X* X* X* Comparison of Atmospheric Chemistry Sensors on X* X* X* X* X* X* Priroda and American Satellites Regional & Temperature Variability of Primary Productivity X* X* X* X* X* X* in Ocean Shelf Waters Test Site Monitoring & Visual Earth Observations X X X X X X Validation of Biosphere-Atmosphere Interchange Model X* X* X* X* X* X* for Northern Prairies Validation of Priroda Rain Observations X* X* X* X* X* X* Mir Window Documentation X X * - Priroda sensors used to support these experiments were only partially activated Fundamental Biology: Environmental Radiation Measurements X X X X Incubator-Integrated Quail Experiments on Mir X Greenhouse - Integrated Plant Experiments X Effective Dose Measurement at EVA X X Cellular Mechanisms of Spaceflight Specific to Plants X Standard Interface Glovebox X Developmental Analysis of Seeds Grown on Mir X Effects of Gravity on Insect Circadian Rhythmicity X Active Dosimetry of Charged Particles X Human Life Sciences: Effects of Spaceflight on Gaze Control X Anticipatory Postural Activity X Evaluation of Skeletal Muscle Performance & Characteristics X Effects of Long-Duration Spaceflight on Eye, Head, & X X Trunk Coordination During Locomotion Assessment of Humoral Immune Function X X X X X Bone Mineral Loss & Recovery X X X X X X Collecting Mir Source & Reclaimed Waters X X X* X* X* X* Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds on Mir X X X* X* X* X* Microbiological Investigations of the Mir Crew X X* X* X* X* Gas Analyzer System Metabolic Analysis Physiology X X X X Magnetic Resonance Imaging After Exposure to Microgravity X X X X X X Protein Metabolism X X Renal Stone Risk Assessment X X X X Crew Member & Crew-Ground Interactions X X X X X 262 Attachment 11.3: Table of Phase 1 Investigations per Mission Increment (continued) Phase 1B Continued Research Increment Human Life Sciences Continued: 2 3 4 5 6 7 Sleep Investigations X X X Frames of Reference for Sensorimotor Transformations X X Cardiovascular Investigations X X * - performed under the Space Medicine Program (SMP) International Space Station Risk Mitigation: Mir Audible Noise Measurement X ShuttlelMir Alignment Stability Experiment X X Enhanced Dynamic Load Sensors on Mir X X X Mir Electric Field Characterization X X X Orbital Debris Collector X X X X X Passive Optical Sample Assembly #1 and #2 X X X X X Polish Plate Micrometeoroid Debris Collector X X X X X Water Microbiological Monitor X X X* X* Mir Structural Dynamics Experiment X X X X Optical Properties Monitor X X X Cosmic Radiation and Effects Activation Monitor X X Test of PCS Hardware X X Space Portable Spectroreflectometer X Radiation Monitoring Equipment X X * - performed under the SMP Microgravity: Interface Configuration Experiment X Candle Flame in Microgravity X Forced Flow Flamespread Test X Angular Liquid Bridge X Opposed Flow Flamespread on Cylindrical Surfaces X Binary Colloidal Alloy Test X X Passive Accelerometer System X Biotechnology System Facility Operations X X X X X X Biotechnology Diagnostic Experiment X X X Cartilage in Space X Biochemistry of 3D Tissue Engineering X Biotechnology CoCulture X Mechanics of Granular Materials X X Microgravity Glovebox Facility Operations X X X X X Microgravity Isolation Mount Facility Operations X X X X Technological Evaluation of MIM X Liquid Metal Diffusion X Queen's University Experiment in Liquid Diffusion X X X Protein Crystal Growth GN2 Experiment X X X X X Diffusion Controlled Crystallization Apparatus X X X X X Space Acceleration Measurement System X X X X X X Colloidal Gelation X Canadian Protein Crystallization Experiment X Interferometer Protein Crystal Growth X 263 Attachment 11.3: Table of Phase I Investigations per Mission Increment (continued) Phase IB Continued Research Increment Space Sciences: 2 3 4 5 Mir Sample Return Experiment X X X Particle Impact Experiment X X X 264 Attachment 11.4: Phase 1 Postflight Reports PHASE 1A PUBLISHED MARCH 1998 INTRODUCTION ...... v Section 1: Metabolism Reports ...... 1-1 2.1.1 Fluid and Electrolyte Homeostasis, Dynamics of Calcium Metabolism and Bone Tissue, Red Blood Cell Mass and Survival (Mir 18 Final Science Report) ...... I-3 2.1.3 Renal Stone Risk Assessment During Long-Duration Spaceflight (Mir 18 Final Science Report) ...... 1-9 2.2.3 Metabolic Response to Exercise (Mir 18 Final Science Report) ...... 1-19 2.3.1 Physiologic Alterations and Pharmacokinetic Changes During Spaceflight (Mir 18 Final Science Report) ...... 1-25 2.4.2 Assessment of Humoral Immune Function During Long-Duration Spaceflight (STS-71 Final Science Report) ...... 1-35 2.4.3 Reactivation of Latent Viral Infections in the Mir Crew (Mir 18 Final Science Report) ...... 1-41 2.4.3 Reactivation of Latent Viral Infections in the Mir Crew (Mir 19 Final Science Report) ...... 1-49 2.4.4 Phenotypic and Functional Analysis of Peripheral Mononuclear Cells During Long-Duration Spaceflight (STS-71 Final Science Report) ...... 1-55 Section 2: Cardiovascular and Cardiopulmonary Reports ...... 2-1 3.1.1 Studies of Orthostatic Intolerance With the Use of Lower Body Negative Pressure (LBNP) (Mir 18 Final Science Report)....2-3 3.1.2 Studies of Mechanisms Underlying Orthostatic Intolerance Using Ambulatory Monitoring, Baroreflex Testing and the Valsalva Maneuver (STS-71 Final Science Report) ...... 2-11 3.2.1 Aerobic Capacity Using Graded Bicycle Ergometry (Mir 18 Final Science Report) ...... 2-! 9 3.2.2 Evaluation of Thermoregulation During Long-Duration Spaceflight (Mir 18 Final Science Report) ...... 2-31 3.3.1 Physiological Responses to Descent on the Space Shuttle (STS-71 Final Science Report) ...... 2-43 Section 3: Neuroscience Reports ...... 3-1 4.1.1 Skeletal Muscle Performance and Characteristics (Mir 18 Final Science Report) ...... 3-3 4.1.2 Morphological, Histochemical, and Ultrastructural Characteristics of Skeletal Muscle (Mir 18 Final Science Report) ...... 3-13 4.2.1 Eye-Head Coordination During Target Acquisition (Mir 18/19 Final Science Report) ...... 3-25 4.2.4 Biomechanics of Movement During Locomotion (Mir 18 Final Science Report) ...... 3-53 4.2.4 Biomechanics of Movement During Locomotion (Mir 19 Final Science Report) ...... 3-69 4.2.4 Alterations in Postural Equilibrium Control Associated With Long-Duration Spaceflight (Mir 18 Final Science Report) ...... 3-79 4.2.4 Alterations in Postural Equilibrium Control Associated With Long-Duration Spaceflight (Mir 19 Final Science Report) ...... 3-91 4.2.4 Anticipatory Postural Activity (POSA) (Mir 18 Final Science Report) ...... 3-103 4.2.4 Anticipatory Postural Activity (POSA) (&fir 19 Final Science Report) ...... 3-109 Section 4: Hygiene, Sanitation and Radiation Reports ...... 4-1 265 5.1 Microbiological Investigations of the Mir Space Station and Flight Crew (Mir 18 Final Science Report) ...... 4-3 5.1 Microbiological Investigations of the Mir Space Station and Flight Crew (Mir 19 Final Science Report) ...... 4-61 5.2.1 In-Flight Radiation Measurements (Mir 18 Final Science Report) ...... 4-93 5.2.6 Cytogenetic Effects of Space Radiation in Human Lymphocytes (Mir 18 Final Science Report) ...... 4-! 03 53 Toxicological Assessment of Air Contaminants (Mir 18 Final Science Report) ...... 4-I 11 5.3 Toxicological Assessment of Air Contaminants (Mir 19 Final Science Report) ...... 4-125 5.3 Trace Chemical Contamination: Water Quality (Mir 18 Final Science Report) ...... 4-153 5.3 Trace Chemical Contamination: Water Quality (Mir 19 Final Science Report) ...... 4-167 Section 5: Behavior and Performance Reports ...... 5-1 6.2.2 The Effectiveness of Manual Control During Simulation of Flight Tasks (Pilot) (Mir 18 Final Science Report) ...... 5-3 Section 6: Fundamental Biology Reports ...... 6-1 7.1.1 Incubator Experiment (Mir 18/19 Final Science Report) ...... 6-3 7.1.2 Greenhouse - Integrated Plant Experiments on Mir (Mir 19 Final Science Report) ...... 6-7 Section 7: Microgravity ...... 7-1 8.1.1 Space Acceleration Measurement System (SAMS) on Mir (Mir 19 Final Science Report) ...... 7-3 266 Attachment 11.4: Phase I Postflight Reports Continued PHASE 1B QUARTERLY 1 PUBLISHED MAY 1997 INTRODUCTION ...... xii SECTION 1: ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ...... 1-1 CGBA Commercial Generic Bioprocessing Apparatus (NASA 3 Operational Accomplishment Report) ...... I-3 LPS Optizone Liquid Phase Sintering Experiment (OLiPSE-01) (NASA 2 Operational Accomplishment Report) ...... I-5 SECTION 2: EARTH SCIENCES ...... 2-1 OBS Visual Earth Observations (NASA 2 Operational Accomplishment Report) ...... 2-3 OBS Visual Earth Observations (NASA 3 Operational Accomplishment Report) ...... 2-21 SECTION 3: FUNDAMENTAL BIOLOGY ...... 3-1 Radiation Environmental Radiation Measurements on Mir Station (NASA 2 Operational Accomplishment Report) ...... 3-3 Radiation Environmental Radiation Measurements on Mir Station (NASA 3 Operational Accomplishment Report) ...... 3-5 Svet Greenhouse - Integrated Plant Experiments on Mir (NASA 3 Operational Accomplishment Report) ...... 3-8 Incubator Incubator Experiment (NASA 2 Operational Accomplishment Report) ...... 3-11 SECTION 4: HUMAN LIFE SCIENCES...... 4-1 SSAS Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds on Mir Station (NASA 2 Operational Accomplishment Report) ...... 4-5 SSAS Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds on Mir Station (NASA 3 Operational Accomplishment Report) ...... 4-9 Posa Anticipatory Postural Activity (NASA 2 Operational Accomplishment Report) ...... 4-13 Immunity Assessment of Humoral Immune Function During Long-Duration Spaceflight (NASA 2 Operational Accomplishment Report)-...... 4-21 Immunity Assessment of Humoral Immune Function During Long-Duration Spaceflight (NASA 3 Operational Accomplishment Report) ...... 4-23 Bone Bone Mineral Loss and Recovery after ShuttlelMir Flights (NASA 2 Operational Accomplishment Report) ...... 4-25 Bone Bone Mineral Loss and Recovery after ShuttlelMir Flights (NASA 3 Operational Accomplishment Report) ...... 4-27 Water Collecting Mir Source and Reclaimed Water for Postflight Analysis (NASA 2 Operational Accomplishment Report) ...... 4-29 Water Collecting Mir Source and Reclaimed Water for Postflight Analysis (NASA 3 Operational Accomplishment Report) ...... 4-33 Interaction Crew Member and Crew-Ground Interactions During NASAIMir (NASA 3 Operational Accomplishment Report) ...... 4-37 Posture The Effects of Long Duration Spaceflight on Eye, Head, and Trunk Coordination During Locomotion (NASA 2 Operational Accomplishment Report) ...... 4-39 267 Posture The Effects of Long Duration Spaceflight on Eye, Head, and Trunk Coordination During Locomotion (NASA 3 Operational Accomplishment Report) ...... 4--47 Gaze The Effects of Long-Duration Spaceflight on Gaze Control (NASA 2 Operational Accomplishment Report) ...... 4-55 Exercise Evaluation of Skeletal Muscle Performance and Characteristics (NASA 3 Operational Accomplishment Report) ...... 4-67 GASMAP Gas Analyzer System for Metabolic Analysis Physiology (NASA 2 Operational Accomplishment Report) ...... 4-69 MR1 Magnetic Resonance Imaging After Exposure to Microgravity (NASA 2 Operational Accomplishment Report) ...... 4-7 ! MRI Magnetic Resonance Imaging After Exposure to Microgravity (NASA 3 Operational Accomplishment Report) ...... 4-73 Micro Microbiological Investigations of the Mir Space Station and Flight Crew (NASA 3 Operational Accomplishment Report) ...... 4-75 Protein Protein Metabolism During Long-Term Spaceflights (NASA 2 Operational Accomplishment Report) ...... 4-85 Protein Protein Metabolism During Long-Term Spaceflights (NASA 3 Operational Accomplishment Report) ...... 4-87 Renal Renal Stone Risk Assessment During Long-Duration Spaceflight (NASA 2 Operational Accomplishment Report) ...... 4-89 Renal Renal Stone Risk Assessment During Long-Duration Spaceflight (NASA 3 Operational Accomplishment Report) ...... 4-93 SECTION5: MICROGRAVITY...... 5-1 DCAM Ambient Diffusion Controlled Protein Crystal Growth (NASA 2 Operational Accomplishment Report) ...... 5-3 DCAM Ambient Diffusion Controlled Protein Crystal Growth (NASA 3 Operational Accomplishment Report) ...... 5-5 BCAT Binary Colloidal Alloy Tests (NASA 3 Operational Accomplishment Report) ...... 5-7 CFM Candle Flame in Microgravity (NASA 2 Operational Accomplishment Report) ...... 5-9 Cartilage Cartilage in Space (NASA 3 Operational Accomplishment Report) ...... 5-I l FFFT Forced Flow Flame Spreading Test (NASA 2 Operational Accomplishment Report) ...... 5-13 ICE Interface Configuration Experiment for the Mir GIovebox (NASA 2 Operational Accomplishment Report) ...... 5-15 MGM Mechanics of Granular Materials (STS-79 Operational Accomplishment Report) ...... 5- ! 7 Glovebox Microgravity Glovebox Facility (MGBX) (NASA 2 Operational Accomplishment Report) ...... 5-21 Glovebox Microgravity Glovehox Facility (MGBX) (NASA 3 Operational Accomplishment Report) ...... 5-23 MIM Microgravity Isolation Mount (NASA 2 Operational Accomplishment Report) ...... 5-25 PCG-Dewar Protein Crystal Growth (PCG) GN 2 Dewar Experiment (NASA 2 Operational Accomplishment Report) ...... 5-27 PCG-Dewar Protein Crystal Growth (PCG) GN 2 Dewar Experiment (NASA 3 Operational Accomplishment Report) ...... 5-29 QUELD Queen's University Experiment in Liquid Diffusion (NASA 2 Operational Accomplishment Report) ...... 5-3 ! SAMS Space Acceleration Measurement System on Mir (NASA 2 Operational Accomplishment Report) ...... 5-33 SAMS Space Acceleration Measurement System on Mir (NASA 3 Operational Accomplishment Report) ...... 5-35 TEM Technological Evaluation of the MIM (NASA 2 Operational Accomplishment Report) ...... 5-37 SECTION6: SPACESCIENCES...... 6-1 MSRE Mir Sample Return Experiment (NASA 2 Operational Accomplishment Report) ...... 6-3 PIE Particle Impact Experiment (NASA 2 Operational Accomplishment Report) ...... 6-5 268 Attachment 11.4: Phase I Postflight Reports Continued Phase 1 B Quarterly 2 PUBLISHED AUGUST 1997 INTRODUCTION ...... vii SECTION 1: ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ...... 1-1 LPS Optizone Liquid Phase Sintering Experiment (OLiPSE-01) (NASA 2 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 1-2 SECTION 2: EARTH SCIENCES ...... 2-1 OBS Visual Earth Observations (OBS) (NASA 2 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 2-3 SECTION 3: FUNDAMENTAL BIOLOGY ...... 3-1 Radiation Environmental Radiation Measurements on Mir Station (NASA 2 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 3-5 Incubator Incubator Experiment (NASA 2 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 3-8 SECTION 4: HUMAN LIFE SCIENCES ...... 4-1 SSAS Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds on Mir Station (NASA 2 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 4-3 Posa Anticipatory Postural Activity (Posa) (NASA 2 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 4-19 Immunity Assessment of Humoral Immune Function During Long-Duration Spaceflight (NASA 2 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 4-27 Bone Bone Mineral Loss and Recovery After Shuttle-Mir Flights (NASA 2 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 4-29 Water Collecting Mir Source and Reclaimed Water for Postflight Analysis (NASA 2 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 4-35 Coordination The Effects of Long-Duration Spaceflight on Eye, Head, and Trunk Coordination During Locomotion (NASA 2 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 4-59 Gaze The Effects of Long-Duration Spaceflight on Gaze Control (NASA 2 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 4-77 MRI Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) After Exposure to Microgravity (NASA 2 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 4-89 Protein Protein Metabolism During Long-Term Spaceflights (NASA 2 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 4-95 Renal Renal Stone Risk Assessment During Long-Duration Spaceflight (NASA 2 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 4-101 SECTION 5: MICROGRAVITY ...... 5-1 BTS Biotechnology System (BTS) Facility Operations (NASA 2 Operational Accomplishment Report) ...... 5-3 BTS Biotechnology System (BTS) Facility Operations (NASA 2 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 5-7 CFM Candle Flame in Microgravity (CFM) (NASA 2 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 5-19 CPCG Commercial Protein Crystal Growth (CPCG) (NASA 2 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 5-29 FFFT Forced Flow Flame Spreading Test (FFFT) (NASA 2 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 5-33 leE Interface Configuration Experiment (ICE) for the Mir Glovebox (NASA 2 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 5-37 269 MGM Mechanics of Granular Materials (MGM) (NASA 2 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 5-49 MGBX Microgravity Glovebox Facility (MGBX) (NASA 2 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 5-59 MIM Microgravity Isolation Mount (MIM) (NASA 3 Operational Accomplishment Report) ...... 5-61 PAS Passive Accelerometer System (PAS) (NASA 3 Operational Accomplishment Report) ...... 5-63 QUELD Queen's University Experiment in Liquid Diffusion (QUELD) (NASA 2 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 5-65 TEM Technological Evaluation of the MIM (TEM) (NASA 2 Preliminary Research Report)...... 5-71 270 Attachment 11.4: Phase 1 Postflight Reports Continued Phase 1B Quarterly 3 PUBLISHED JANUARY 1998 INTRODUCTION ...... o°oo ...... °,°°°°°, ...... oooo,°°°°,° ...... °o°,° ...... °°°°o ...... o°°°,o ...... o°o, ...... °°o°ooooo,oo°o,oo.°,°ooo,°oo,° ...... °°,°oo°,,ooi SECTION 1: ADVANCEDTECHNOLOGY ...... 1=1 CGBA Commercial Generic Biopr_essing Apparatus (CGBA) (NASA 3 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 1-3 SECTION 2: EARTH SCIENCES ...... 2 OBS Visual Earth Observations (OBS) (NASA 3 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 36 OBS Visual Earth Observations (OBS) (NASA 4 Operational Accomplishments Report) ...... 48 SECTION 3: FUNDAMENTAL BIOLOGY ...... 55 BRIC Cellular Mechanisms of Spaceflight Specific Stress to Plants Experiment (NASA 4 Operational Accomplishments Report) ... 59 Dose Effective Dose Measurement During EVA Experiment (NASA 4 Operational Accomplishments Report) ...... 63 Radiation Environmental Radiation Measurements on Mir Station (NASA 3 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 65 Radiation Environmental Radiation Measurements on Mir Station (NASA 4 Operational Accomplishments Report) ...... 7 I Svet Greenhouse - Integrated Plant Experiments on Mir (NASA 3 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 73 SIGB Standard Interface Glovebox Hardware Verification (NASA 4 Operational Accomplishments Report) ...... I l I SECTION 4: HUMAN LIFE SCIENCES ...... 113 Water Analysis of Mir Archival Water Samples (NASA 4 Operational Accomplishments Report) ...... I 17 SSAS Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds on Mir Station (NASA 3 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 121 Immunity Assessment of Humoral Immune Function During Long-Duration Spaceflight (NASA 3 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 135 Immunity Assessment of Humoral Immune Function During Long-Duration Spaceflight (NASA 4 Operational Accomplishments Report) ...... 137 Bone Bone Mineral Loss and Recovery After Shuttle-Mir Flights (NASA 3 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 139 Bone Bone Mineral Loss and Recovery After Shuttle-Mir Flights (NASA 4 Operational Accomplishments Report) ...... 145 Water Collecting Mir Source and Reclaimed Water for Postflight Analysis (NASA 3 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 147 Interaction Crew Member and Crew-Ground Interactions During NASA-Mir (NASA 3 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 173 Interaction Crew Member and Crew-Ground Interactions During NASA-Mir (NASA 4 Operational Accomplishments Report) ...... 177 Coordination The Effects of Long-Duration Spaceflight on Eye, Head, and Trunk Coordination During Locomotion (NASA 3 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 179 Coordination The Effects of Long-Duration Spaceflight on Eye, Head, and Trunk Coordination During Locomotion (NASA 4 Operational Accomplishments Report) ...... 189 Exercise Evaluation of Skeletal Muscle Performance and Characteristics (NASA 3 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 197 Orientation Frames of Reference for Sensorimotor Transformations (NASA 4 Operational Accomplishments Report) ...... 199 271 MRI Magnetic Resonance imaging (MRI) After Exposure to Microgravity (NASA 3 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 203 MRI Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) After Exposure to Microgravity (NASA 4 Operational Accomplishments Report) ...... 207 Micro Microbiological Investigations of the Mir Space Station and Flight Crew (NASA 3 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 209 Micro Microbiological Investigations of the Mir Space Station and Flight Crew (NASA 4 Operational Accomplishments Report) ...... 219 Protein Protein Metabolism During Long-Term Spaceflights (NASA 3 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 229 Renal Renal Stone Risk Assessment During Long-Duration Spaceflight (NASA 3 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 235 Sleep Sleep Investigations (NASA 4 Operational Accomplishments Report) ...... 243 SSAS/GSC Toxicological Assessment of Airborne Volatile Organic Compounds (NASA 4 Operational Accomplishments Report) ...... 247 SECTION 5: MICROGRAVITY ...... 251 ALB Angular Liquid Bridge Experiment - MGBX (NASA 4 Operational Accomplishments Report) ...... 253 BCAT Binary Colloid Alloy Test (BCAT) (NASA 3 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 257 LMD Liquid Metal Diffusion (LMD) - MIM (NASA 4 Operational Accomplishments Report) ...... 265 MIDAS Materials in Devices as Superconductors (MIDAS) (NASA 3 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 267 MGBX Microgravity Glovebox Facility (MGBX) (NASA 4 Operational Accomplishments Report) ...... 273 OFFS Opposed Flow Flame Spreading Over Cylindrical Surfaces (OFFS) (NASA 4 Operational Accomplishments Report) ...... 277 QUELD Queen's University Experiment in Liquid Diffusion (QUELD) (NASA 4 Operational Accomplishments Report) ...... 281 SAMS Space Acceleration Measurement System (SAMS) on Mir (NASA 4 Operational Accomplishments Report) ...... 285 272 Attachment 11.4: Phase 1 Postflight Reports Continued Phase 1B Quarterly 4 PUBLISHED MARCH 1998 INTRODUCTION °o,,°,o,o ...... °,,o,°,°°°°o,,°°o° ...... o°oo,°o°°o ...... o°o°oo ...... °o°,,,°ooo°°°°o°,° ...... o°°o°o°°oo°°,°o ...... °°,°°o,°°°°°,°°i SECTION 1: EARTH SCIENCES ...... 1-1 Window Mir Window Survey (NASA 5 Operational Accomplishments Report) ...... I-3 OBS Visual Earth Observations (OBS) (NASA 2 Final Research Report) ...... 1-15 OBS Visual Earth Observations (OBS) (NASA 4 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 1-21 OBS Visual Earth Observations (OBS) (NASA 5 Operational Accomplishments Report) ...... 1-25 SECTION 2: FUNDAMENTAL BIOLOGY ...... 2-1 BRIC Cellular Mechanisms of Spaceflight-Specific Stress to Plants Experiment (NASA 4 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 2-3 Dose Effective Dose Measurement During EVA Experiment (NASA 4 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 2-9 Beetle Effects of Gravity on Insect Circadian Rhythmicity Experiment (NASA 5 Operational Accomplishments Report) ...... 2-15 Radiation Environmental Radiation Measurements on Mir Station (NASA 4 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 2-17 Radiation Environmental Radiation Measurements on Mir Station (NASA 5 Operational Accomplishments Report) ...... 2-23 Greenhouse Developmental Analysis of Seeds Grown on Mir (NASA 5 Operational Accomplishments Report) ...... 2-25 SECTION 3: HUMAN LIFE SCIENCES ...... 3-1 SSAS Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds on Mir Station (NASA 2 Final Research Report) ...... 3-3 SSAS Toxicological Assessment of Airborne Volatile Organic Compounds (NASA 4 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 3-19 Immunity Assessment of Humoral Immune Function During Long-Duration Spaceflight (NASA 2 Final Research Report) ...... 3-47 Bone Bone Mineral Loss and Recovery After Shuttle-Mir Flights (NASA 5 Operational Accomplishments Report) ...... 3-49 Water Collecting Mir Source and Reclaimed Water for Postflight Analysis (NASA 2 Final Research Report) ...... 3-5 I Water Analysis of Mir Archival Water Samples (NASA 4 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 3-81 Water Analysis of Mir Archival Water Samples (NASA 5 Operational Accomplishments Report) ...... 3-101 Interaction Crew Member and Crew-Ground Interactions During NASA-Mir (NASA 4 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 3-105 Interaction Crew Member and Crew-Ground Interactions During NASA-Mir (NASA 5 Operational Accomplishments Report) ...... 3-109 Orientation Frames of Reference for Sensorimotor Transformations (NASA 4 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 3-111 MRI Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MR1) After Exposure to Microgravity (NASA 2 Final Research Report) ...... 3-I 17 MRI Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) After Exposure to Microgravity (NASA 4 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 3-125 Micro Microbiological Investigations of the Mir Space Station and Flight Crew (NASA 5 Operational Accomplishments Report) ..... 3-129 Protein Protein Metabolism During Long-Term Spaceflights (NASA 2 Final Research Report) ...... 3-133 Renal Renal Stone Risk Assessment During Long-Duration Spaceflight (NASA 2 Final Research Report) ...... 3-139 Sleep (E639) Sleep Investigations: Human Circadian Rhythms and Sleep in Space (NASA 4 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 3-145 273 SECTION4: MICROGRAVITY...... 4-1 DCAM Ambient Diffusion Controlled Protein Crystal Growth (DCAM) (NASA 2 Final Research Report) ...... 4-3 DCAM Ambient Diffusion Controlled Protein Crystal Growth (DCAM) (NASA 5 Operational Accomplishments Report) ...... 4-7 CFM Candle Flame in Microgravity (CFM) (NASA 2 Final Research Report) ...... 4-9 CGEL Colloidal Gelatin (CGEL) (NASA 5 Operational Accomplishments Report) ...... 4-19 CPCG Commercial Protein Crystal Growth (CPCG) (STS-79 Final Research Report) ...... 4-21 CPCG Commercial Protein Crystal Growth (CPCG) (STS-86 Operational Accomplishments Report) ...... 4-29 ICE Interface Configuration Experiment (ICE) for the Mir Glovebox (NASA 2 Final Research Report) ...... 4-33 PCG-VDA Protein Crystal Growth (PCG) VDA-2 Experiment (STS-84 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 4-41 SAMS Space Acceleration Measurement System (SAMS) on Mir (NASA 2 Final Research Report) ...... 4-47 SAMS Space Acceleration Measurement System (SAMS) on Mir (NASA 3 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 4-59 SAMS Space Acceleration Measurement System (SAMS) on Mir (NASA 5 Operational Accomplishments Report) ...... 4-61 TEM Technological Evaluation of the MIM (TEM) (NASA 2 Final Research Report) ...... 4-65 SECTION5: SPACESCIENCES...... 5-1 PIE Particle Impact Experiment (PIE) (NASA 4 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 5-3 274 Attachment 11.4: Phase 1 Postflight Reports Continued PHASE 1B QUARTERLY 5 PUBLISHED JUNE 1998 INTRODUCTION ...... °°°°°o° ...... °,,o°°o ...... °.o ...... o°o,°° ...... °xii SECTION 1: ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ...... 1-1 CGBA Commercial Generic Bioprocessing Apparatus (CGBA) (NASA 3 Final Research Report) ...... 1-3 CGBA Commercial Generic Bioprocessing Apparatus (CGBA) (NASA 6 Operational Accomplishments Report) ...... 1-8 MIDAS Materials in Devices as Superconductors (MIDAS) (NASA 3 Final Research Report) ...... 1-11 SECTION 2: EARTH SCIENCES ...... 2-1 Window Mir Window Survey (NASA 5 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 2-3 Window Mir Window Survey (NASA 6 Operational Accomplishments Report) ...... 2-8 OBS Visual Earth Observations (OBS) (NASA 3 Final Research Report) ...... 2-28 OBS Visual Earth Observations (OBS) (NASA 6 Operational Accomplishments Report) ...... 2-31 SECTION 3: FUNDAMENTAL BIOLOGY ...... 3-1 Dosimetry Active Dosimetry of Charged Particles (NASA 6 Operational Accomplishments Report) ...... 3-3 Beetle Effects of Gravity on Insect Circadian Rhythmicity (NASA 5 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 3-5 Greenhouse Greenhouse - Integrated Plant Experiments on Mir (NASA 3 Final Research Report) ...... 3-13 Greenhouse Developmental Analysis of Seeds Grown on Mir (NASA 5 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 3-63 Incubator Incubator Experiment (NASA 2 Final Research Report) ...... 3-73 SECTION 4: HUMAN LIFE SCIENCES ...... 4-1 Water Analysis of Mir Archival Water Samples (NASA 5 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 4-3 Water Analysis of Mir Archival Water Samples (NASA 6 Operational Accomplishments Report) ...... 4-13 SSAS Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds on Mir Station (NASA 3 Final Research Report) ...... 4-19 Immunity Assessment of Humoral Immune Function During Long-Duration Spaceflight (NASA 6 Operational Accomplishments Report) ...... 4-41 Bone Bone Mineral Loss and Recovery After Shuttle-Mir Flights (NASA 3 Final Research Report) ...... 4-43 Bone Bone Mineral Loss and Recovery After Shuttle-Mir Flights (NASA 5 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 4-49 Bone Bone Mineral Loss and Recovery After Shuttle-Mir Flights (NASA 6 Operational Accomplishments Report) ...... 4-55 Interaction Crew Member and Crew-Ground Interactions During NASA-Mir (NASA 3 Final Research Report) ...... 4-57 Interaction Crew Member and Crew-Ground Interactions During NASA-Mir (NASA 6 Operational Accomplishments Report) ...... 4-61 MRi Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) After Exposure to Microgravity (NASA 3 Final Research Report) ...... 4-63 MRI Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MR1) After Exposure to Microgravity (NASA 5 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 4-75 275 MRI Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) After Exposure to Microgravity (NASA 6 Operational Accomplishments Report) ...... 4-79 Protein Protein Metabolism During Long-Term Spaceflights (NASA 3 Final Research Report) ...... 4-81 Renal Renal Stone Risk Assessment During Long-Duration Spaceflight (NASA 3 Final Research Report) ...... 4-87 Renal Renal Stone Risk Assessment During Long-Duration Spaceflight (NASA 6 Operational Accomplishments Report) ...... 4-93 SECTION5: MICROGRAVITY...... 5-1 DCAM Ambient Diffusion Controlled Protein Crystal Growth (DCAM) (NASA 2 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 5-5 DCAM Ambient Diffusion Controlled Protein Crystal Growth (DCAM) (NASA 3 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 5-1 I DCAM Ambient Diffusion Controlled Protein Crystal Growth (DCAM) (NASA 4 Operational Accomplishments Report) ...... 5-17 ALB Angular Liquid Bridge Experiment - MGBX (NASA 4 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 5-21 BTS Biotechnology System (BTS) Facility Operations (NASA 4 Operational Accomplishments Report) ...... 5-25 BTS Biotechnology System (BTS) Facility Operations (NASA 5 Operational Accomplishments Report) ...... 5-3 I Cartilage Cartilage in Space-BTS (NASA 3 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 5-35 MGM Mechanics of Granular Materials (MGM) (STS-79 Final Research Report) ...... 5-41 MGM Mechanics of Granular Materials (MGM) (STS-89 Operational Accomplishments Report) ...... 5-51 MGBX Microgravity Glovebox (MGBX) Facility Operations (NASA 5 Operational Accomplishments Report) ...... 5-55 PAS Passive Accelerometer System (PAS) (NASA 3 Final Research Report) ...... 5-57 PCG-Dewar Protein Crystal Growth (PCG) GN 2Dewar Experiment (NASA 2 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 5-67 PCG-Dewar Protein Crystal Growth (PCG) GN_ Dewar Experiment (NASA 2 Final Research Report) ...... 5-71 PCG-Dewar Protein Crystal Growth (PCG) GN,Dewar Experiment (NASA 3 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 5-75 PCG-Dewar Protein Crystal Growth (PCG) GN: Dewar Experiment (NASA 3 Final Research Report) ...... 5-79 PCG-Dewar Protein Crystal Growth (PCG) GN2Dewar Experiment (NASA 4 Operational Accomplishments Report) ...... 5-83 SAMS Space Acceleration Measurement System (SAMS) on Mir (NASA 2 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 5-85 SAMS Space Acceleration Measurement System (SAMS) on Mir (NASA 4 Preliminary Research Report) ...... 5-87 SAMS Space Acceleration Measurement System (SAMS) on Mir (NASA 6 Operational Accomplishments Report) ...... 5-99 276 Attachment 11.5: List of Phase I Peer-Reviewed Publications Arzamazov, G. S., Whitson, P. A., Larina, O. N., Pastushkova, L. Kh., Pak, C. Y. C. "Assessment of the Risk Factors for Urolithiasis in Cosmonauts During Long Flights." Aviakosmicheskaia I Ekologicheskaia Meditsina 30(3): 24-32, (1996). Badhwar, G.D. "Drift rate of the South Atlantic Anomaly." J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 102, pp. 2343-2349, (Feb. 1997). Badhwar, G.D. "The Radiation Environment in Low Earth Orbit." Radiation Research, 148 (5 Suppl): $3-10, (1997). Badhwar, G.D., Atwell, W., Cash, B., Petrov, V.M., Akatov, Y.A., Tchernykh, I.V., Shurshakov, V.A., and Arkhangelsky, V.A. "Radiation environment on the Mirorbital station during solar minimum." Adv. Space Res., (1997) (accepted for publication). Badhwar, G.D., Cucinotta, F. A. "Depth Dependence of Absorbed Dose, Dose Equivalent and Linear energy Transfer Spectra of Galactic and Trapped Particles in Polyethylene and comparison with Calculations of Models." Rad/ation Research, 149: 209-218, (1998). Badhwar, V.A., Shurshakov, V.A., and Tsetlin, V.V. "Solar modulation of dose rate onboard the Mirstation." IEEE Nucl. Sc/ence, 1997 (submitted for publication). Bingham, G.E., Salisbury, F.B., Campbell, W.F., and Carman, J.G. 'q-he Spacelab- and Mir- 1 'Greenhouse-2' experiment." Microgravity Sc/ence and Technology, 18(3):58-65, (1994). Bingham, G.E., Salisbury, F.B., Campbell, W.F., Carman, J.G., Yendler, B.Y., Sytchev, V.S., Berkovich, Y.B., Levinskikh, M.A., and Podolsky, I. 'qhe Spacelab- Mir-1 'Greenhouse-2' Experiment." Adv. Space Res. 18:225-232, (1996). Fortney, S.M., Mikhaylov, V., Lee, S.M.C., Kobzsev, Y., Gonzalez, R.R., and Greenleaf, J.E. "Body Temperature and Thermoregulation After 115-Day Space Flight." A viat. Space Environ. Med. (In Press). Freed, L.E., Langer, R., Martin, I., Pellis, N., and Vunjak-Novakovic, G. "Tissue Engineering of Cartilage in Space." Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 94, pp 13885-13890, (1997). 277 Attachment 11.5: List of Phase 1 Peer-Reviewed Publications (Continued) Fritsch-Yelle, J. M., Leuenberger, U. A., D'Aunno, D. S., Rossum, A. C., Brown, T. E., Wood, M. D., Josephson, M. E., Goldberger, A. L. "An Episode of Ventricular Tachycardia During Long-Duration Spaceflight." Amer/can Journal of Cardiology, in press (1998). Jones, S. B. and Or, Dani. "Microgravity Effects on Water Flow and Distribution in Unsaturated Poroud Media: Analysis of Flight Experiments." Soil Sc/ence, In press. Koszelak, S., Leja, C., and McPherson, A. "Crystallization of Biological Macromolecules from Flash Frozen Samples on the Russian Space Station Mir." Biotech. and Bioeng., Vol. 52, pp. 449-458, (1996). Layne, C.S., Lange, G.W., Pruett, C.J., McDonald, P.V., Merkle, L.A., Smith, S.L., Kozlovskaya, I.B. and Bloomberg, J.J., "Adaptation of neuromuscular activation patterns during locomotion after long-duration space flight." Acta Astronautic& in press, 1998. Layne, C.S., Mulavara, A.P., McDonald, P.V., Kozlovskaya, I.B., Pruett, C.J., and Bloomberg, J.J. "The effect of Foot Pressure on Neuromuscular Activation Patterns Generated During Space Flight." J. Neurophys., In Press (revision), (1997). Salisbury, F.B., Bingham, G.E., Campbell, W.F., Carman, J.G., Bubenheim, D.L., Yendler, B., Jahns, G. "Growing Super-Dwarf Wheat in Svet on Mir." Life Support and Biosphere Science, 2:31-39, (1995). Sture, S., Costes, N. C., Batiste, S., Lankton, M., AIShibli, K., Jeremic, B., Swanson, R. and Franc, M. "Mechanics of Granular Materials at Low Effective Stresses." Accepted for publication in J Aerospace Eng/neering July 1998. Yang, T. C., George, K., Johnson, A. S., Durante, M., Fedorenko, B. S. "Biodosemitry results from Space Flight Mir-18." Radiation Research, 148 (5 Suppl): $17-$23, (1997). 278 Attachment 11.6: Phase 1 Symposia Presentations Presentations From August 5 - 7, 1997 Symposium List of Attendees ...... i Section 1: Environmental Monitoring ...... 1-1 Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds on M/r(SSAS/GRAB) ...... Collecting M/rSource and Reclaimed Water for Postflight Analysis (Water) ...... Water Quality Monitor (WQM) ...... Microbiological Investigations of the M/rSpace Station During NASA 2/3 (Micro) .... Space Acceleration Measurement System (SAMS) ...... M/rAudible Noise Measurement (MANM) ...... Enhanced Dynamic Load Sensors on M/r(EDLS) ...... Micrometeoriod/Debris Survey of M/r(M/rPhoto Survey) ...... Section 2: Microgravity & Materials Science ...... 2-1 Forced Flow Flamespread Test (FFFT) ...... Candle Flame in Microgravity (CFM) ...... Interface Configuration Experiment (ICE) ...... Binary Colloidal Alloy Tests (BCAT) ...... Protein Crystal Growth GN2 Dewar (PCG-DEWAR) ...... Ambient Diffusion Controlled Apparatus (DCAM) ...... Commercial Protein Crystal Growth (CPCG) ...... Commercial Generic Bioprocessing Apparatus (CGBA) ...... Biotechnology System Facility (BTS) ...... Biotechnology System Diagnostic Experiment (BTSDE) ...... Cartilage in Space (BTS-Cart) ...... MirStructural Dynamics Experiment (MiSDE) ...... Microgravity Isolation Mount Facility (MIM) ...... Microgravity Glovebox Facility (MGBX) ...... High-Temperature Liquid Phase Sintering (OLiPSE) ...... Queen's University Experiment in Liquid Diffusion (QUELD) ...... Materials in Devices as Superconductors ...... Mechanics of Granular Materials (MGM) ...... Section 3: Space Sciences ...... 3-1 Particle Impact Experiment (PIE) ...... Section 4: Developmental Biology ...... 4-1 Incubator- Integrated Quail Experiments on M/r(Quail) ...... Integrated Plant Experiments on M/r(Greenhouse) ...... 279 Section 5: Earth Science ...... 5-1 Visual Earth Observations (OBS) ...... Section 6: Human Life Sciences ...... 6-1 Renal Stone Risk Assessment During Long-Duration Spaceflight (E651) ...... Crew Member and Crew-Ground Interactions (E628) ...... The Effect of Long-Duration Spaceflight on the Acquisition of Predictable Targets (Gaze) ...... Effects of Long-Duration Spaceflight on Eye, Head, and Trunk Coordination During Locomotion (E644) ...... Anticipatory Posture ...... 280 Attachment 11.6: Phase I Symposia Presentations Continued Presentations From March 31-April 2, 1998 Symposium Symposium Overview ...... i List of Attendees ...... ii Section 1: Environmental Monitoring ...... 1-1 Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds on Mir(SSAS/GRAB) ...... 1-2 Collecting M/rSource and Reclaimed Water for Postflight Analysis (Water) ...... 1-10 Water Quality Monitor (WQM) ...... 1-20 Crew Medical Restraint System (CMRS) ...... 1-34 Volatile Organic Analyzer (VOA) ...... 1-40 Environmental Health Anomalies/Air Pollutants ...... 1-47 Section 2: Vehicle Dynamics ...... 2-1 Space Acceleration Measurement System (SAMS) ...... 2-2 MirAudible Noise Measurement (MANM) ...... 2-11 Enhanced Dynamic Load Sensors on Mir(EDLS) ...... 2-14 MirWireless Network Experiment (MWNE) ...... 2-28 Section 3: External Environment ...... 3-1 Micrometeoriod/Debris Survey of M/r (Mir Photo Survey) ...... 3-2 Passive Optical Sample Assembly #1 & #2 (POSA) ...... 3-8 Polish Plate Micrometeoroid Debris Collector (MEEP) ...... 3-14 Optical Properties Monitor (OPM) ...... 3-21 Section 4: Combustion Science ...... 4-1 Forced Flow Flamespread Test (FFFT) ...... 4-2 Candle Flame in Microgravity (CFM) ...... 4-9 Opposed Flame Flow Spread on Cylindrical Surfaces (OFFS) ...... 4-17 Section 5: Fluid Physics ...... 5-1 Interface Configuration Experiment (ICE) ...... 5-2 Angular Liquid Bridge Experiment (ALB) Section 6: Material Science ...... 6-1 Microgravity Isolation Mount Facility (MIM) ...... 6-2 Queen's University Experiment in Liquid Diffusion (QUELD) ...... 6-2 Canadian Protein Crystallization Experiment (CAPE) ...... 6-2 281 Colloidal Gelatin (CGEL) ...... 6-20 Binary Colloidal Alloy Tests (BCAT) ...... 6-22 Microgravity Glovebox Facility (MGBX) ...... 6-24 High-Temperature Liquid Phase Sintering (OLiPSE) ...... 6-32 Liquid Metal Diffusion (LMD) ...... 6-55 Mechanics of Granular Materials (MGM) ...... 6-63 Section 7: Biotechnology ...... 7-1 Protein Crystal Growth GN2 Dewar (PCG-DEWAR) ...... 7-2 Commercial Protein Crystal Growth (CPCG) ...... 7-5 Single Locker Thermal Enclosure System (STES) ...... 7-9 Biotechnology System Facility (BTS) ...... 7-18 Biotechnology System Diagnostic Experiment (BTSDE) ...... 7-28 Section 8: Earth Science ...... 8-1 Visual Earth Observations (OBS) ...... 8-2 M/rWindow Survey ...... 8-12 Section 9: Space Biology ...... 9-1 Standard Interface Glovebox Facility (SIGB) ...... 9-2 Effects of Insect Circadian Rhythmicity (BEETLE) ...... 9-6 Greenhouse - Integrated Plant Experiments on M/r ...... 9-14 Section 10: Human Life Sciences ...... 10-1 Assessment of Humoral Immune Function During Long-Duration Spaceflight (Immunity - E621) ...... 10-2 Renal Stone Risk Assessment During Long-Duration Spaceflight (E651) ...... 10-8 Crew Member and Crew-Ground Interactions (E628) ...... 10-16 Sleep Investigations (E639, E710, E663) ...... 10-25 Effects of Long-Duration Spaceflight on Eye, Head, and Trunk Coordination During Locomotion (E644) ...... 10-31 Anticipatory Posture ...... 10-41 Bone Mineral Loss and Recovery (E598) ...... 10-49 Magnetic Resonance Imaging After Exposure to Microgravity (MRI - E586) .... 10-51 Protein Metabolism During Long-Term Spaceflight (E613) ...... 10-59 282 STS-63 and STS-86 cosmonaut Vladimir Titov conducts an experiment in the Spacehab module 283 NASA 4 astronaut Jerry Linenger 284 Section 12 - NASA Russian Public Affairs Working Group (WG-1) Report Authors: Victor Dmitriyevich Blagov, Deputy Co-Chair, Flight Operations and Systems Integration WG (Operations) Debra Rahn, Co-Chair, Public Affairs WG Rob Navias, Public Affairs WG Working Group Members and Contributors: Valery A. Udaloy, Co-Chair, Public Affairs WG Anatoly A. Eremenko, News Operation Subgroup Sergei Gromov, Protocol and Guest Operations Subgroup Vsevolod Ivanov, Television Subgroup Vladimir Samsonov, Mission Control Center (MCC)-M (Chief, Display Division) Vsevolod Latyshev, Public Affairs WG Boris Razumov, Public Affairs WG Andrei Maiboroda, Public Affairs WG Alexander A. Borovikov, Public Affairs WG Ivan I. Safronov, Public Affairs WG Joseph N. Benton, Television Subgroup Mark Hess, News Operations Subgroup Paula Cleggett, Protocol and Guest Operations Subgroup 285 12.1 Responsibilities The NASA/Russian Public Affairs Working Group (WG-I) was responsible for the planning, development, and execution of all public affairs aspects of the Phase 1 Shuttle/Mir program. This included the issuing of press releases, status reports and press kits, the scheduling and conduct of press conferences, distribution of television, coordination and execution of interviews by media and educational organizations with crew members on both the Shuttle and the Mir Space Station, distribution of photographs, guest operations, and selection and logistical coordination of commemorative items. In addition, international television and video crews were granted access to document astronaut and cosmonaut training, space hardware and mission control operations in both the U.S. and Russia. 12.2 Structure The WG-1 was led by U.S. and Russian co-chairs and met for the first time at the Russian (MCC-M), Korolev, Russia, in June 1994. Public Affairs representatives from NASA Headquarters, NASA's Johnson Space Center (JSC), MCC-M, Russian Space Agency, Y.A. Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Center, RSC Energia (RSC-E), Space Command, Institute of Biomedical Problems (IBMP) and Central Scientific and Research Institute for Machine Engineering participated in this WG. It was decided during the first WG-1 meeting to establish three sub-working groups: television, news operations, and protocol and guest operations. These sub-working groups were responsible for the detailed planning in these areas. We found this to be a very useful organizational structure and it is being used in the International Space Station (ISS) Partners Public Affairs Working Group. A NASA/Russian Public Affairs Plan was developed and signed prior to U.S. Astronaut Norm Thagard's flight onboard a Soyuz capsule to the Russian Mir space station as well as for each Shuttle/Mir docking mission. This plan outlined the exchange of information, photographs, video, biographies, preflight and mission press conferences, exchange of in-flight television, in-flight interviews, written status reports, protocol activities, guest operations, receptions, commemorative items, and a contingency plan. Over the years, the WG-1 participants developed a strong working relationship that was based on mutual respect and trust. As the relationship matured, it became easier to plan and coordinate public affairs activities. NASA placed Public Affairs representatives on a rotating basis at MCC-M for Astronaut Norm Thagard's 105-day mission onboard the Mir Space Station (March 16-June 29, 1995). Once Shannon Lucid was launched on board the Space Shuttle 286 (STS-76)onMarch22,1996,NASApublicaffairsofficersbeganacontinuous presencein MCC-Mandin June1997,apermanentPublicAffairsOfficer(PAO) waslocatedatMCC-Mthroughtheendof thePhase1program. 12.3 Accomplishments Thevalueof havingaPAOatMCC-Mwasclearlyevidentin 1997,whenthe world'snewsmediapaidincreasedattentionto theMir due to a solid oxygen generation canister fire and the Progress collision. The NASA PAO worked closely with the NASA Operations Lead, Russian Public Affairs representatives, and Public Affairs officials at NASA Headquarters and JSC to coordinate the timely release of accurate information to the news media. This was a challenge for both sides, particularly with a substantial time difference between Moscow and the U.S. NASA and MCC-M management held news media briefings on an almost daily basis after the Progress accident. In addition, NASA released daily written status reports for weeks following the collision. NASA and the MCC-M Public Affairs representatives consulted frequently and exchanged information about Mir-related public affairs activities in the U.S. and Russia. They also coordinated the visits of U.S. news media representatives to MCC-M and other Russian organizations, and finalized the weekly in-flight PAO events with U.S. astronauts onboard Mir. The story of the Phase 1 Shuttle-Mir program was perhaps best illustrated through the exchange of television between the U.S. and Russia and the broadcast of all key events to the world through NASA Television. Through the eyes of television cameras on the Mir, U.S. media and audiences throughout the world were able to see a variety of crew activities on board the Russian station and witnessed key operational accomplishments such as Shuttle, Progress and scientific module dockings with Mir as well as space walk activity, including the first joint U.S.- Russian space walk conducted in April 1997. Similarly, through Shuttle television systems, all elements of the Mir and crew activities were seen by viewers around the world, highlighting the collaborative work undertaken during the joint cooperative program. One of the most effective video segments captured during the Shuttle-Mir docking missions was a tour of the Mir's modules, conducted both on STS-79 and STS-84. In-flight interviews and news conferences held with U.S. astronauts residing on the Mir and the cosmonauts were broadcast in the U.S. and distributed worldwide. WG-1 worked extensively to arrange VIP calls to the joint crews during docked operations and coordinated events such as the celebration of the 50th U.N. Anniversary during the STS-74 mission in November 1995. One of the most important images produced from the Shuttle-Mir program was taken from a Soyuz vehicle of Atlantis joined to the Mir during the first docked mission on STS-71 in July 1995. 287 TheWG-1designedandproducedcommemorativeitems.Theseitemsincluded plaquesfor eachmissionthatwereflowntoMir on board the Space Shuttle and Phase I aluminum coins that contained metal from both the Space Shuttle and the Mir. U.S. and Russian flags and mission patches were flown on the Shuttle to Mir which were returned for use as presentation items. When other international crew members flew, flags from their countries were also flown. As the result of the Space Shuttle/Mir docking program, people all around the world became very familiar with the Russian Mir space station. Our WG was very successful in providing information to the general public through the release of our joint products and joint efforts. 12.4 Lessons Learned and Applications to ISS On occasion during Phase 1, in particular during the fire and the aftermath of the Progress collision, NASA had to release information to the public about developments on the Mir many hours after Russian officials released information to reporters in MCC-M. While it is important to wait for the proper officials to address the contingency issues, information should be provided to the news media as quickly and accurately as possible. During ISS, we will have to issue news releases in a timely manner and direct comments to the news media with consistent information. The release of that information should contain initial information to the public followed by more detailed information through technical experts as soon as updated information is acquired. The importance of having a NASA public affairs presence in MCC-M was demonstrated during Phase 1. We now have two PAOs permanently assigned to MCC-M and will continue to have that presence throughout the ISS program. In addition, NASA has invited all the international partners to have a permanent public affairs representative based at the JSC news room to coordinate ISS public affairs activities. On occasion, operational issues resulted in the last minute cancellation of scheduled U.S. television events from Mir. The success of the missions and the safety of the crew on ISS will always take priority. But, we will make every effort to try to accommodate scheduled television events from the Russian ISS segment during Expedition 1. For the duration of Expedition 1, the Russian television system link will be the only broadcast quality television path available to us from ISS. We are in the process of developing an ISS public affairs contingency plan that will be approved by the ISS program management and international partners prior to the launch of the first ISS component, the "Zarya" or FGB module. 288 To createamoreefficientworkingenvironmentin MCC-MduringISSoperations, thenewsmediashouldhaveaspecialroomin whichtheycanconducttheir businessawayfromtheareaswheretechnicalexpertsareworking,includingthe MCC-Mbalconyandtheflight controlroom.Thenewsmediawill haveaccessto PublicAffairsrepresentativesandtechnicalexpertsfor interviewsin aseparate officein MCC-Msimilartothewaythenewsmediaconductsitsinterviewsat JSC. 289 NASA 2 astronaut S. Lucid and NASA 3 astronaut J. Blaha aboard Mir 290 Section 13 - Applications to the International Space Station (ISS) Authors: Pavel Mikhailovich Vorobiev, Co-Chair of the Cargo and Scheduling Subgroup Lynda Gavin, Technical Assistant to the Phase 1 Program Manager 291 13.1 UniqueIssues Thedevelopersof theISSprogramfacemanyissuesthatareuniquein world practice. Ananalysisof theresultsof Mir-Shuttle and Mir-NASA program implementation showed that a significant number of these issues have already been resolved and could be successfully be used in the ISS program. Together, the experience acquired in fulfilling the joint Russian-American program and which can be adapted for ISS operations, is presented in eleven separate blocks in Figure 13.1. Each block represents activities in several areas with each area having several dozen or even hundreds of separate resolved issues. Thus even today, as practical missions are carried out for the Mir-NASA program, several thousand issues regarding the interaction between the ISS Russian and American segments have been worked out. 13.2 Use of Shuttle for the Space Station Logistics Support The first block examines utilization of the Shuttle for transport and engineering support of the orbital station. This is the most significant achievement. Before making flights to the Mir station, the Shuttle carried out solitary flights as a carrier of satellites and scientific labs with no active dockings or payload deliveries to a station. In nine Shuttle flights to Mir, several docking alternatives were developed. The Shuttle docked with the station in three of its configurations: to the axial and lateral nodes of the Kristall module and to the docking compartment, which was mated to the Kristall module. The Shuttle itself had two configurations: docking using its docking module (DM) and the special Russian docking compartment, which remained on the station after the docking. The Shuttle docked along the velocity vector and to the nadir and performed a fly-around of Mir. During STS-91, the Shuttle was in a configuration characteristic of the ISS. The experience gained from various dockings will be applied to the first stage of ISS assembly. As a delivery vehicle for various payloads sent to Mir, the Shuttle became a peer of the Progress-M spacecraft. Over the course of nine missions, it has delivered 22.9 metric tons of payloads, including large DMs, to the Mir station. 292 m m C_ C_ 0 [] I e_ i J ..._ °_ 0 _Q G I I [] I _ _-_ _ _ "_.l J i 0 _ o _ G | 0 ! "E .-_ _ ,_ .-_ _E ° O _ _ _ _'_ 0 _ t:N'_io _ _ w , _-_ m , .___ _" _ _, ° .__ _ e_ • -, ¢.., Q e-_ N Z M_ 0 m 0 e,_ m_ _:_ -_ e. I:_ _ _ _ _._ _Q ._ ....'.__ _=. _ _._ -._ ._. _-_ _ _o._ "_ _ = _ .-_ _m 00000 Among the cargo are the following: Russian: gyroscopes, an Elektron, storage batteries, life-support system hardware, water for the crew, and more than 200 types of American science equipment. However, the Shuttle did not just deliver cargo to Mir. It also returned the results of experiments, scientific devices, and Mir station hardware for analysis and reuse: gyrodynes, an Elektron, remote-operator control mode equipment and Kurs hardware, storage batteries, and much else. Over the course of nine flights, the Shuttle vehicles returned 7.8 metric tons of cargo. The total mass of the cargo traffic was 30.7 metric tons. The experience gained from delivery and the retum of Russian cargo will be virtually completely incorporated in Phase 2, since the ISS Russian segment systems are in many ways identical to those installed on Mir. It will also be expedient to apply experience acquired from the delivery and return of American science equipment to the ISS. During the flights, various alternatives for delivering and returning crews were developed. The crew consisting of Dezhurov, Strekalov, and Thagard was launched in the Soyuz-TM and returned on the Shuttle, while Solovyev and Budarin took off on the Shuttle and returned in the Soyuz-TM. American astronauts Shannon Lucid, John Blaha, Jerry Linenger, Michael Foale, Dave Wolf, and Andrew Thomas were launched and returned on the Shuttle. All of these methods will be implemented for the ISS. The first ISS crew will launch in the Soyuz-TM and will return on the Shuttle. On the whole, fulfillment of transport operations by the Shuttle has proven the effectiveness of utilizing reusable vehicles for supplying orbital stations. 13.3 Interaction Between International Crews The second block reflects experience acquired in the sphere of cooperation between international crews. The American astronauts spent a total of 942 days on Mir, thus exceeding the total presence of all foreign astronauts on the Salyut and Mir stations. The successful experiences of American astronauts in long-duration flights on Mir of from 115 to 188 days and their flights with two Russian crews that replaced one another are of great importance in ISS program planning. Practice has shown that it is not necessary to limit the length of missions to three months or to launch and return with the same crew. This was confirmed when A. Solovyev and M. Foale, who were launched aboard different spacecraft, performed an extravehicular activity (EVA) on 6 September 1997. Loading and unloading the Shuttle in orbit is one of the most important and labor- intensive operations. There were doubts at the start of the program as to whether the Mir and Shuttle crews would have enough time to perform these operations during a short five-docked day mission. Today these operations have been successfully 294 developed.RussiancosmonautsandAmericanastronautsworksmoothlyandvery quickly.DuringSTS-86,thetotalmassofcargotransferredfromtheShuttletoMir and vice versa was 4525 kg. The Mir and Shuttle crews have acquired experience in simultaneously conducting two science programs based on joint experiments, which will undoubtedly be important for the ISS. One feature of the American science program is the large quantity of science equipment that is replaced during each Shuttle flight (on average, 600 kg), which is anticipated for the ISS. Joint EVA experience should be mentioned. Linenger, Foale, and Wolf egressed in Russian space suits, and Titov worked in an American space suit during STS-86. During EVAs, cosmonauts worked with American payloads, while astronauts worked with Russian ones during STS-86. The astronauts on the station accompanied the cosmonauts during EVAs, and helped them with operations. Other accomplishments were training astronauts and cosmonauts in each other's language, methodologies, development of tools to facilitate technical operations in orbit, and the creation of efficiencies in mission training. Training of astronauts and cosmonauts conducted at each other's space centers broadened the scope of training techniques, styles and methods. Experience was gained in astronaut training as cosmonaut researcher and onboard engineer-2 for individual systems during Mir long- duration missions. 13.4 Space Station System Serviceability Over a Long-Term Mission The third block is very important because the experience acquired in long-duration station system support in space is unique. The Mir station is in its 13thyear of flight, and several problems, such as the biocorrosion of the thermal control system, became apparent only in the 12th year of operation. The experience gained has made it possible to adopt measures to ensure 15 years of flight and 10 years of operation of such basic systems and ISS module assemblies as the thermal control system, the onboard cable network, the integrated propulsion system, the pressure hull, pumps, valves, and equipment for controlling the pencil-beam antenna. Considering the fact that this experience was gained during the actual flight of the orbital station, it is invaluable. A joint understanding was developed on how noncritical systems can be operated until they fail, then can be replaced through routine maintenance without compromising safety or mission success. In addition a joint understanding was developed that multiple oxygen-generating systems are essential to ensure uninterrupted operations while maximizing safety margins. 295 13.5 Experiencein Off-NominalSituationsRecovery In the fourth block, all of the emergency situations that are listed occurred on Mir and were successfully eliminated by the crews with the participation of American astronauts. Of course, the emergency situations on Mir were not specially planned; nevertheless, the experience in resolving the situations is doubtless a contribution to the ISS program. It is especially important to mention preparations for repressurizing the Spektr module. So far, only plans for such operations have been drawn up for the ISS. They have become necessary for the Mir station. Working under the shortest of deadlines, RSC-Energia (RSC-E) and the Khrunichev Space Center developed repair hardware for sealing possible leaks in space. The hardware has been tested, was sent to Kennedy Space Center (KSC), and was delivered to Mir during STS-86 in September 1997. Unfortunately, despite the repair operations which were conducted, including crew EVAs, up to now it has not been possible to repressurize the Spektr module. However, the results obtained during full-scale testing may in fact be included in the scope of work performed for the ISS. 13.6 Joint Ground Operations With Logistics Items The fifth block notes categories of joint work during ground preparation of payloads. Presently, virtually all ground service operations necessary for transport of Russian payloads on the Shuttle and American payloads on Mir modules and Progress and Soyuz vehicles have been developed and fine-tuned with consideration of the specific requirements of equipping the orbital station. This allows American and Russian experts, in particular, to quickly resolve issues concerning delivery of emergency payloads. Thus, in April 1997, a month before the launch of STS-84, a 140-kg Elektron unit was stowed in the Spacehab module. In August of that same year, and a month before the launch of STS-86, 300 kg of repair equipment for the Spektr module was placed in the Spacehab and on the mid-deck. Experience in real-time stowage of payloads Qn delivery vehicles for the orbital station will certainly be incorporated into Phase 2. Preparation operations and preflight testing of integrated payloads have been developed. The Russian Spektr and Priroda modules and Progress-M spacecraft have delivered 2000 kg of American science equipment which has been tested at different places, including the Baikonur launch site. At the same time, a Russian DM and solar array units were prepared and placed in the Shuttle payload bay (STS-74) at KSC. 296 Acquiredexperiencein joint preflighttestingof integratedpayloads,in particularthe DM,will beappliedto theISSprogramwhentheRussiansciencepowerplatformand itssolararraysarepreparedfor transportontheShuttle. All meansof informationexchange,includingjoint mockups,arewidelyusedfor payloadstowageoperations. It isimportantto notetheconcurredworkof AmericanandRussianexpertsin flight safetyassurancefor theShuttlewhencarryingRussianpayloadsandwhendocked withMir, including during execution of the American science program. Acceptance test procedures for the primarily American science equipment, including the issuance of safety certificates, have been adjusted. All of these inconspicuous operation categories will be a characteristic part of the ISS program, and less time will be required to adjust them. 13.7 Research of Station Environment The sixth block comprises activities on station environment studies including Mir- Shuttle stack attitude control. A rack for isolating sensitive scientific experiments from disturbing vibrations caused by normal crew activity was successfully tested on Mir. Data was collected on effect of long-duration exposure of hardware to space environment through the Mir Environmental Effects Payload, which was deployed and retrieved by astronauts and cosmonauts on joint space walks. For the first time experience was gained in attitude control of a big and flexible structure Mir + Shuttle. Attitude control was supported by both reaction control jets (Mir and Shuttle) and gyrodynes. Particularly, the procedure of using jets of the Progress vehicle for desaturation of gyrodynes will be used during attitude control of ISS for desaturation of both Russian gyrodynes and American control moment gyrodynes. 13.8 Russian/U.S. Cargo Integration The seventh block concerns issues regarding integration of Russian and American payloads. This integration falls under two categories. • developing and utilizing American equipment and life-support systems delivered to Mir; • constantly expanding the list of partners' payloads in national transport vehicles. Today, Mir uses American life-support systems as well as traditional Russian equipment and life-support systems. 297 Hereisapartiallist: • the Kvant module has a Russian solar array deployed on one side and an American solar array deployed on the other; • 50% of foodstuffs have been American while the other 50% have been Russian; • both American and Russian CO2 absorbers, water storage tanks, medical kits, instruments, and water have been used; • after the Shuttle is docked, its air is exchanged with the air of the Mir station. Of particular note as a contribution to Phase 2 is the resolved problem of using a Shuttle power-supply system byproduct, water, on the orbital station. On the one hand, it was not necessary to load the Shuttle with water because water accumulated by the end of the flight, but on the other, this water could not be stored for long on the station, which is necessary for a long-duration flight. Thus, throughout these flights, Russian and American experts worked in tum to resolve this issue, and now, the ISS crew will be able to consume water delivered during each Shuttle flight with no problems. 13.9 Development of Joint Documents The eighth block notes that joint documents were issued for the Mir-NASA program. There are fairly many such joint documents. More than fifteen were issued on operations alone for each flight. Documents such as the Russian cargo manifest and interface control documents are wholly transferable to Phase 2. Experience in creating joint Russian-American documents is already widely used in the development of ISS documentation, and this has accelerated the work process. 13.10 Experience Gained in Joint Shuttle/Mir Complex Control From MCC-H/MCC-M (Mission Control Centers in Houston and Korolev) The ninth block is concerned with the large experience gained by both sides in the joint control process of the Mir and Shuttle during nine short- and seven long- duration missions. Shuttle and Mir were originally developed independently of each other and there was no compatibility between the two. MCC-M and MCC-H also operated under individual programs independently of each other. The potential experience in MCC joint operations was only available from the short- duration Apollo-Soyuz Program, completed in 1975. This experience was fully utilized, but it was insufficient. 298 ThePhase1taskswereof twotypes: • conductscientificexperiments; • gainoperationalexperienceforusein Phase2. Manyengineeringaswellasoperationaldecisionswererequiredin ordertoensure thecapabilityof Mir and Shuttle and joint control of the mated vehicles from two MCCs, separated from each other by thousands of miles, in different time zones, each with their own traditions and languages. Flight control took place under changing Mir configurations and constantly developing tasks. In this way, it was like simulating the process of ISS development on orbit. All Phase 1 tasks were successfully completed, which serves as proof of the technical capabilities of both sides. As a result it is possible to ascertain that during the course of Phase 1 a foundation was created for successful Phase 2 preparations, and the technological structure and methodology of joint flight control for future international programs such as the ISS were created and refined. We can note acquired experience in the following areas: • study of flight control experience of Russian and U.S. vehicles; • structure of the joint vehicle control groups of different countries; • structure of the joint ground and flight data files for flight control and crew operations; • the set of technical operations for joint flight planning of vehicles from both countries; • the set of procedures for jointly making decisions for both nominal flight and in emergency situations; • mutual use of capabilities of the partners' flight and ground segments; • communications system and data exchange for flight control between MCC- M and MCC-H; • organizing international crew operations and the interaction of the MCCs with the crews; • simultaneous execution of two or more science programs from different countries; • procedures for publicizing information about flight activities; • integration of Mir and Shuttle onboard systems. In addition, the joint flight of the two 100-ton vehicles----qhe Shuttle and the Mir station in mated flight---in many ways simulated the flight of the American and Russian ISS segments, since the complex has many distinctive characteristics of the international station: the docked Shuttle, a large crew, two science programs and joint experiments, transfer and stowage of cargo and so on, that also applies to Phase 2. 299 13.11 ScienceResearchAccomplishments Thetenth block represents the many important scientific accomplishments of the Phase 1 Program. These accomplishments are summarized well in section 11 of the report under the subheading "WG-4 Accomplishments." 13.12 Combining Experience of Two Space Engineering Schools The eleventh block describes how, on the whole, two technical schools of space engineering were successfully integrated during implementation of the Mir-Shuttle and Mir-NASA programs. Furthermore, issues of separate work locations, different technical and spoken languages, and production of identical documentation were resolved. Resolving the issues listed above required the diligent work of hundreds of Russian and American specialists. Their efforts made the program highly productive. 300 Atlantis docked to Mir during STS71 301 The Shuttle Endeavor lands at KSC after STS-89 302 Section 14- Conclusions Authors: Valeriy Viktorovich Ryumin, Russian Phase 1 Program Manager Frank L. Culbertson, Jr., U.S. Phase 1 Program Manager 303 Conclusions ThePhase1Programenduredthroughafire,acollision,severalpowershortages,andother significantcontingenciesandlast-minuteadjustmentsandproudlyaccomplisheditsfourmain objectives: 1. Learnhowtoworkwithinternationalpartners. 2. Reducerisksassociatedwithdevelopingandassemblingaspacestation. 3. GainoperationalexperienceforNASAonlong-durationmissions. 4. Conductlife science,microgravity,andenvironmentalresearchprograms. U.S.andRussianspaceprogramsbridgedcultural,linguistic,andtechnicaldifferencesand createdajoint processfor analysis,missionsafetyassessment,andcertificationof flight readiness.Thiscollaborationresultedin ajoint programspanningmorethanfouryearsthat capitalizedonacombinedfourdecadesof spacefaringexpertisebothin Earthorbitalandinter- cosmosexplorationtobuildthefoundationforanInternationalSpaceStation. 304 Section 15 - Acronym List A/G Air to Ground ACT a Russian certification statement AD Accompanying Documentation ADV Advanced Technology AIT Analysis and Integration Team ALIS Analysis of Critical Liquids in Space AMERD Astronaut Medical Evaluation Requirements Document APAS Androgynous Peripheral Assembly System APDA Androgynous Peripheral Docking Assembly APU Air Pressurization Unit AT Acceptance Test BCAT Binary Colloid Alloy Test BDC Baseline Data Collection BNA Boeing North American BPA Nitrogen Purge Unit BTS Biotechnology System BVK Vacuum Valve Unit CC Crew Commander CCB Configuration Control Board cfm cubic feet per minute CFM Candle Flame in Microgravity CHAPAT Active Dosimetry of Charged Particles CNES French Space Agency CO Carbon Monoxide CO2 Carbon Dioxide COFR Certificate of Flight Readiness COSS Crew On-Orbit Support Systems CR Cosmonaut Researcher CWC Contingency Water Container DARA German Space Agency DCAM Dialysis Crystallization Apparatus for Microgravity DFRC Dryden Flight Research Center DID Dimensional Installation Drawings DM Docking Module 305 DMT DecreedMoscowTime DOR Directorof Operation,Russia EDA ExternalDosimeterArray EDLS EnhancedDynamicLoadSensors EDV StorageTank EID ElectricalInterfaceDrawing EMU ExtravehicularMobility Unit ES EarthSciences ESA EuropeanSpaceAgency ESC ElectronicStill Camera EVA ExtravehicularActivity FB Fundamental Biology FE Flight Engineer FEPC Flight Equipment Processing Contract FES Flash Evaporator System FFFF Forced Flow Flame Spreading Test FS Flight Surgeon GBx Glove Box GCTC Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Center GN Gaseous Nitrogen HLS Human Life Sciences HMST Hazardous Material Summary Table IBMP Institute for Biomedical Problems ICD Interface Control Document ICE Interface Configuration Experiment IELK Individual Equipment and Liner Kit IPRD Integrated Payload Requirements Document IPT Integrated Product Team IRMIS Iodine Removal and Mineral Injection System ISS International Space Station ISSP International Space Station Program IVA Intravehicular Activity JSAWG Joint Safety Assurance Working Group JSC Johnson Space Center KSC Kennedy Space Center lb pounds LDM Long Duration Mission LiOH Lithium Hydroxide 306 LPS Liquid Phase Sintering MCC Mission Control Center MCC-H Mission Control Center - Houston MCC-M Mission Control Center - Moscow MEEP Mir Environmental Effects Payload MG Microgravity MGBx Microgravity Glove Box MIM Microgravity Isolation Mount MIPS-2 Mir Interface Payload System MiSDE Mir Structural Dynamics Experiment mmHg millimeters of Mercury MMO Mission Management Office MOD Mission Operations Directorate MOIWG Mission Operations Integration Working Group MOST Mir Operations Support Team MS Mission Specialist MSDS Material Safety Data Sheets MSMK Mir Supplemental Medical Kit MSRD Mission Science Requirements Document MSRE Mir Sample Return Equipment MSWG Mission Science Working Group MT3 Flight Integration Office at JSC MVAK Module Vertical Access Kit N2 Nitrogen NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration nms newton - meter - seconds NSTS National Space Transportation System 02 Oxygen ODS Orbiter Docking System OMS Orbital Maneuvering Subsystem ONS Off-Nominal Situation OPM Optical Properties Monitor OS Orbital Station OV Orbiter Vehicle P1RD Phase 1 Requirements Document PDRS Payload Deployment and Retrieval System PED Payload Experiment Developers 307 PGOC PayloadGroundOperationsContractor PI PrincipleInvestigator PIE Particle Impact Experiment PIPS Payload Integration Planning System PL Payload POSA Payload Operations Support Area PRCS Primary Reaction Control System PS passport psia pounds per square inch absolute PSRP Payload Safety Review Panel PUP Payload Utility Panel PWQ Process Waste Questionnaire QUELD 1I Queen's University Experiment in Liquid Diffusion RCS Reaction Control System RNDZ/PROX/OPS Rendezvous/Proximity Operations RIO Russia Interface Officer RMS Remote Manipulator System RR Replan Request RSA Russian Space Agency RSC-E Rocket Space Corporation - Energia SAFER Simplified Aid for EVA Rescue SAMS Space Acceleration Measurement System SAR Safety Analysis Report SCAT Spaceflight Cognitive Test SIWG Systems Integration Working Group SMP Space Medicine Program SOIFW Shuttle Orbiter In-Flight Food Warmer SPPF Spacehab Payload Processing Facility SPSR Space Portable Spectral Reflectometer SS Space Sciences SSPF Space Station Processing Facility STS Space Transportation System SVS Space Vision System SWC Solid Waste Container TCS Trajectory Control Sensor TEF Thermoelectric Freezer TEHOF Thermoelectric Holding Facility TEM Technological Evaluation of the MIM 308 TEPC Tissue-equivalent Proportional Counter TLD Thermo Luminescence Dosimeter TORU Teleoperator mode TsUP Mission Control Center-Kaliningrad (MCC-M) TV Television USA United States of America VB-3 Onboard Exercise Training Equipment VHF Very High Frequency WETF Weightless Environment Training Facility WG Working Group BKB-3 Air Conditioning Unit 13MII Contaminants Filtering Unit I30 Habitation Module 13OBa On-board Air Dehumidifier, Autonomous FMO Medical Support Group ]IOH-17KC Mir Core Module Integrated Simulator ]IC13-4 Auxiliary Solar Array ttJI76-M]IK EVA Training Aircraft designation KAB Atmospheric Moisture Condensate KM Matrix Switching Unit KMY Simulator Facility Complex KCO)K Life Support Systems Complex KCH Command Signal Panel M13H Biomedical Training HFO Unpressurized Compartment HHHIIHHCHT Scientific Research Institute for Food Preparation and Specialty Food Technology HHHD Scientific Investigations and Experiments HXP Exterior Cold Radiator Panel oA v Integrated (combined) Propulsion System OHHKC Krater V Control Unit IIFO-1 Instrument/Cargo Compartment ii c Permanently Operating Systems H3-1 Latch Drive IIHO Instrumentation/Scientific Compartment of Kvant-2. IICH Acceptance Test HPH Russian acronym for Deputy Flight Director (PRP) 309 PHB-2,3B Hand-operated Rotary Valve CA Descent Module CA-BO Hatch between Descent Module and Habitation Module CB-2(- 4) Solar Array (designation 2, 4) CBY-3 Scuba Gear designation COA Vozdukh Atmospheric Purification Systems CO_ Life Support System COTP Thermal Mode Control System CH-DO Descent - Long Duration Crew CYBK Onboard Complex Control System CYR Motion Control System TAK Complex Dynamic Simulator TOPY Teleoperator Mode THC Standard Flight Days YI/IBK Control Information and Computer Complex YKTO Physical Exercise Training Complex XCA BO TK Cooler/Dehumidifier Assembly of Soyuz Habitation Module IIICO Special Airlock DKT Complex Exam Training 9FIK-HCA Passive Docking Assembly Electropneumatic Valve 9HK-P)_ Electropneumatic Pressure Control Valve DY-734 Experimental Facility (designation 734) 310 REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reportingburden for this collectionof informationis estimatedto average 1 hour per response,includingthe timefor reviewinginstructions,searchingexisting data sources, gatheringand maintainingthe dataneeded, and completingand reviewingthe collectionof information.Send commentsregarding thisburdenestimateor any other aspect of thiscollection of information,including suggestionsfor reducingthisburden, to WashingtonHeadquartersServices,Directoratefor InformationOperationsand Reports,1215 JeffersonDavis Highway,Suite 1204, Arlington,VA 22202_1.302, and to the Officeof Managementand Budget,PaperworkReductionProject(0704-0188), Washington,DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY [Leave B/ankJ 2, REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED January 1999 NASA Special Publication 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS Phase 1 Program Joint Report 6. AUTHOR(S) George C. Nield, Ed.; Pavel Mikhailovich Vorobiev, Ed.* 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBERS Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center S-845 Houston, Texas 77058 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER National Aeronautics and Space Administration SP-1999-6108 Washington, DC 20546-0001 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES * Russian Space Agency 12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE Available from the NASA Center for AeroSpace Information (CASI) 7121 Standard Hanover, MD 21076-1320 13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words) This report consists of inputs from each of the Phase 1 Program Joint Working Groups. The Working Groups were tasked to describe the organizational structure and work processes that they used during the program, joint accomplishments, lessons learned, and applications to the International Space Station Program. This report is a top-level joint reference document that contains information of interest to both countries. 14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF 16. PRICE CODE PAGES space shuttle missions; Mir Space Station; astronaut performance; astronauts; 322 cosmonauts; extravehicular activity; International Space Station 17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20, LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified Unlimited Standard Form 298 (Rev Feb 89) (MS Word Mar 97) NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18 298-102